Fate of Canada in an "America wins Quebec" scenario

Eddy was as passionate of a rebel as he was a civilian. He only had about at most 150 men, against a garrisoned 210, with a veteran at the walls.

The only real trouble that could be raised in the Maritime region would be pirating. Which would/did push the colony into loyalist hands.

It would take a concerted effort of at least 5000 trained men, and a capable General to cause problems. When he, maybe Arnold, would make it to Halifax, it would become more of a stalling tactic, than conquest. It would take a full naval invasion for a decisive siege, and the US never had the capability to defend it's shores, and make a full scale naval assault on a major naval base.

At most I would see Lower Canada be a contention for stability, as it was the respecting of Quebecois culture, in the Quebec Act, that really set the fire under the American rebels. With a successful invasion, the US might even offer it back to France for concessions, and support.

Okay maybe that last idea is a bit of a stretch.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Eddy was as passionate of a rebel as he was a civilian. He only had about at most 150 men, against a garrisoned 210, with a veteran at the walls.

The only real trouble that could be raised in the Maritime region would be pirating. Which would/did push the colony into loyalist hands.

It would take a concerted effort of at least 5000 trained men, and a capable General to cause problems. When he, maybe Arnold, would make it to Halifax, it would become more of a stalling tactic, than conquest. It would take a full naval invasion for a decisive siege, and the US never had the capability to defend it's shores, and make a full scale naval assault on a major naval base.

And with a Patriot Quebec, why Eddy of his ATL equivalent (quite possibly Arnold, indeed) would not have many more men at his command ? All the Patriots need to do is overrun and keep a strong presence in most of NS, and keep the British mostly bottled in Halifax. This shall secure them the colony at the peace table.

At most I would see Lower Canada be a contention for stability, as it was the respecting of Quebecois culture, in the Quebec Act, that really set the fire under the American rebels.

No, no, no, no. NO. :mad::( This is yet another badly wrong idea about the American Revolution and the factually non-existent urge of the Patriots to discriminate and oppress BNA Catholics that endlessly circulates on this board.

What really pissed off the 13 colonies about the Quebec Act was that it awarded most of the Mississippi-Appalachians area to Quebec, and hence shut if off to their own expansion. The colonists were quite touchy about everything that forestall their western expansion, but they cared little about the Quebecois getting tolerance, since they had no qualms giving full equality to their own Catholic minorities, once they run the show. If the Quebec Act had gone differently with no tolerance for the Quebecois, the Indian Reserve would have likely gone to the HBC, and the 13 colonies would have been just as pissed off.

With a successful invasion, the US might even offer it back to France for concessions, and support.

France had stopped caring to own Quebec in 1763.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Eddy was as passionate of a rebel as he was a civilian. He only had about at most 150 men, against a garrisoned 210, with a veteran at the walls.

The only real trouble that could be raised in the Maritime region would be pirating. Which would/did push the colony into loyalist hands.

It would take a concerted effort of at least 5000 trained men, and a capable General to cause problems. When he, maybe Arnold, would make it to Halifax, it would become more of a stalling tactic, than conquest. It would take a full naval invasion for a decisive siege, and the US never had the capability to defend it's shores, and make a full scale naval assault on a major naval base.

At most I would see Lower Canada be a contention for stability, as it was the respecting of Quebecois culture, in the Quebec Act, that really set the fire under the American rebels. With a successful invasion, the US might even offer it back to France for concessions, and support.

Okay maybe that last idea is a bit of a stretch.

5000 men?
The number I got have about a third of that forming two continental army regiments from Quebec. And that's with the province being largely neutral, the intolerable acts either not affecting them too much or having some of the Canadiens' revendications covered (even if some of the stuff done later would revoke partially).
The main problem with lower canada is that the patriot movement only gained power a generation later.

For bonus points, manage to make Ignace de Salaberry switch sides ;) (his son was Chief of Staff of the Lower Canada militia in 1812 and commanded the Canadian Voltigeurs). He fought at Quebec IOTL.
 
Last edited:
The shear logistics to send an army into the wilderness, otl New Brunswick, with no proper road, be it from Quebec, or Massachusetts, would be taxing to say the least, with or with out holding Quebec. They could hold it for a winter and prepare the best they can, until the river thaws and opens up.

Okay, so if it was for the land concessions, why would the Quebecois side with a political force, that wants to take away land, they've been given, by their British masters?

I like idea of Revolutionaries, running around the continent and "Bolivar-ing" BNA, but having everybody sit politely, in the US house of Representatives, is a little much.

A more Autonomous, and balkanized, BNA, would more likely be the result of Quebec, falling to the US.

Shoot If they could hold their own, and take Quebec, be it conquest, or idealogical freeing of the Quebecois, for the cost of the said disputed territories, it might be enough to encourage the Louisiane, to try the same with their new Spanish lords.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Okay, so if it was for the land concessions, why would the Quebecois side with a political force, that wants to take away land, they've been given, by their British masters?

One obvious reason: because the PoD causes a different Quebec Act. No tolerance concessions to the Quebecois, the Indian Reserve allotted to the HBC.

I like idea of Revolutionaries, running around the continent and "Bolivar-ing" BNA, but having everybody sit politely, in the US house of Representatives, is a little much.

Dude, if New England traders and Southern gentry could do it, so Montreal traders and New England traders, or Quebecois gentry and Southern gentry, can do it. Catholic and Protestant sit politely together in the Continental Congress.

A more Autonomous, and balkanized, BNA, would more likely be the result of Quebec, falling to the US.

A US state in 1789 had an enormous amount of autonomy, it was in charge of pretty much everything but defense, foreign policy, and monetary-fiscal integration. Apart from "this constitution does not mean what it does not mean" guarantees about religion and language, an American Quebec is not going to want or need any more autonomy. Its interestes align with the other US states of similar population and socio-economic features.
 
Last edited:
But the Quebec act was signed in 1774, and the PoD is 1775.

Dude, Maryland was a small surrounded state, and spoke the Kings English. As pretty of a paint as you want to use, there was strong anti-catholic sentiment, first amendment or not. As well most Southern Gentry were either unitarian, or Baptist.

I believe a successful US invasion of Quebec would stretch the US into a constant holding pattern of fending off British attacks. While it would buy them time to maybe set up an invasion of Nova Scotia, Halifax would still be an open port.

If Quebec is to go to the US table, it would have to be given at least as close as possible terms as what it was getting, as British subjects, otherwise, we're steering into hypnotism to get French Canadien regiments in the Continental Army.

It could extend the war, because I don't see the British, just giving up on a part of the Empire they just recently conquered, and started to incorporate.

Could a US occupied Quebec lead to an even looser Confederation?
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
But the Quebec act was signed in 1774, and the PoD is 1775.

I was under the impression that the scenario was somewhat open-ended about the details of the PoD, with the OP just making an example, and so allowed to bring Quebec in America by choice, not conquest.

Dude, Maryland was a small surrounded state, and spoke the Kings English.

And American elites spoke French as the language of culture. To bring Quebec in the fold as an equal in no way threatens Protestant supremacy in the foreseeable future.

I believe a successful US invasion of Quebec would stretch the US into a constant holding pattern of fending off British attacks. While it would buy them time to maybe set up an invasion of Nova Scotia, Halifax would still be an open port.

If the US gets more stretched, it also gets more resources. While the British gets even more stretched, with no extra resources.

If Quebec is to go to the US table, it would have to be given at least as close as possible terms as what it was getting, as British subjects, otherwise, we're steering into hypnotism to get French Canadien regiments in the Continental Army.

Well, if Quebec gets onboard after the Quebec Act, it would keep Upper Canada, and in all likelihood Southern Ontario gets split off to form a second Francophone state at the same time Tennessee or Ohio joins the Union. Of course, pretty much the same thing is going to happen even if there is no redrawing of Quebec borders in 1774. Of course, if America gets Canada, Ontario is going to be largely Francophone nonetheless. The Quebec Act borders were so outrageously unbalanced that they were never going to stand for long, either under London or under Washington, and hence not to be taken seriously, except as the British Parliament giving the finger to the 13 colonies.

It could extend the war, because I don't see the British, just giving up on a part of the Empire they just recently conquered, and started to incorporate.

As opposed to the even more valuable 13 colonies ? Dude, a lost war is a lost war, and in 1783 Britain was quite war-weary.

Could a US occupied Quebec lead to an even looser Confederation?

The US Constitution already made the states masters in all their domestic affairs, where the pecularities of language and religion mattered. There are several plausible ways which the formation of the USA could be screwed up, but addition of Quebec does not seem likely to throw the balance one way or the other. The battle lines between federalists and anti-federalists cut across each and every of the 13 states, Quebec is not going to be that different. In the issues that were relevant at the federal level, the interests of the Montreal trader aligned with the ones of its Boston or New York counterpart, and the ones of the Quebecois seigneurs with the ones of the Southern elite (apart from slavery, of course).
 
Last edited:
The shear logistics to send an army into the wilderness, otl New Brunswick, with no proper road, be it from Quebec, or Massachusetts, would be taxing to say the least, with or with out holding Quebec. They could hold it for a winter and prepare the best they can, until the river thaws and opens up.

Okay, so if it was for the land concessions, why would the Quebecois side with a political force, that wants to take away land, they've been given, by their British masters?

I like idea of Revolutionaries, running around the continent and "Bolivar-ing" BNA, but having everybody sit politely, in the US house of Representatives, is a little much.

A more Autonomous, and balkanized, BNA, would more likely be the result of Quebec, falling to the US.

Shoot If they could hold their own, and take Quebec, be it conquest, or idealogical freeing of the Quebecois, for the cost of the said disputed territories, it might be enough to encourage the Louisiane, to try the same with their new Spanish lords.

So many, commas, make, for choppy sentences. My head, hurts.
 

Shackel

Banned
I find all of this "America would hate Quebec/America would collapse"-sentiment confusing.

Especially seeing how Quebec was given the automatic O.K. if they wanted to join.

In the Articles of Confederation.
 
I find all of this "America would hate Quebec/America would collapse"-sentiment confusing.

Especially seeing how Quebec was given the automatic O.K. if they wanted to join.

In the Articles of Confederation.

Quebec was and has been all about preserving its language and culture. If America were to suddenly say "speak English, dammit", there would be some problems.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Quebec was and has been all about preserving its language and culture. If America were to suddenly say "speak English, dammit", there would be some problems.

This is part of the problem with the "American Quebec cannot work" meme. It is based on the copy and paste of modern Canada problems on 1789 North America. The 13 colonies are not going to enforce federal linguistic and religious discrimination, they did care far too much about their own civil rights and local autonomies to create such a precedent. And educated 1789 Americans spoke French the way educated modern continental Europeans speak English.
 
This is part of the problem with the "American Quebec cannot work" meme. It is based on the copy and paste of modern Canada problems on 1789 North America. The 13 colonies are not going to enforce federal linguistic and religious discrimination, they did care far too much about their own civil rights and local autonomies to create such a precedent. And educated 1789 Americans spoke French the way educated modern continental Europeans speak English.
This.

Why the hate on the Quebec Act? Ohio River Valley, that's why.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
This.

Why the hate on the Quebec Act? Ohio River Valley, that's why.

And it's not like Quebec gave a damn about the Ohio in the end; prior to Canadian independence, the main support for french canadian liberals came from the US and France :p
 
Last edited:
Top