For Want of a Governor - A American Canada TL

[triscreen]

Chapter I

By September 1775, the American Revolution had been going on for four months. It was localized mostly in the area around Boston, with battles occurring at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. The only major "battle", if one could call it that, was the seizure of Fort Ticonderoga in May of that year. However, that was about to change.

On September 4, Richard Montgomery launched an invasion of Canada while his superior, Philip Schuyler, was attending a conference with Native Americans. Although he caught up with the invading force after they had crossed the border, he fell ill shortly afterwards, so command was left to General Montgomery.

On September 17th, the American force began a siege of Fort St. John's. Although Ethan Allen was defeated by the British at the battle of Longue-Pointe and captured, the fort fell on November 3 after a failed relief attempt.

Montgomery and his forces proceeded to Montreal, which fell without much resistance on November 13th. The governor of British Canada and the commander of its forces, Sir Guy Carleton, tried to disguise himself as a commoner escape, but was captured before he could do so [1].

After Montreal fell, General Montgomery moved on to Quebec. Although the city was fortified, it was cut off from reinforcements, and its defending force was disorganized. After a short battle on December 31, the defenders of Quebec were defeated, and the city officially surrendered the following day, on January 1, 1776.

With the fall of Quebec, General Montgomery set up a provincial convention. The predominantly French-Canadian population of Quebec mostly treated the Americans as liberators, and almost all of them at least tolerated the American presence. Soon, the Quebecois had sent a delegation to the Continental Congress, led by Christophe Pélissier, an owner of a local ironworks that had served as an advisor to General Montgomery during the invasion.

In addition, Congress authorized reinforcements to arrive in Quebec, in case the British tried to attack the province. However, realizing that they were at a disadvantage, the British troops decided to defend what they had kept in Canada, especially with the American reinforcements.

Back in New England, the Americans would manage to pull off another success. Henry Knox, a bookseller, was sent from Boston to Fort Ticonderoga, where he began an effort to transport artillery captured from the fort to Boston. This effort was a success. After American troops set up the artillery on Dorchester Heights, the bewildered British decided to evacuate Boston on March 17th, exactly six months after the Siege of Fort John's had begun.

A third triumph had been made by the revolutionaries, but this one was by the pen, not by the sword. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was published on January 10, 1776 in Philadelphia, advocating for independence. Soon, the idea began spreading among many Americans, including those at the Continental Congress. And with the victories in Canada and Boston, some began to think that they might just be able to do it.
​

[1] - This is the POD. IOTL, Carleton managed to escape from Montreal, organize the British forces in Quebec, and kill Montgomery, leading to an American retreat from Canada.

​

 

[Unknown]

Um, this belongs in the Before 1900 section, @triscreen.

Good start, though...

 

[Gabingston]

Good TL, but wouldn't 18th Century WASPs not want to live in the same country as Papist Frenchmen?

 

[triscreen]

Good TL, but wouldn't 18th Century WASPs not want to live in the same country as Papist Frenchmen?

The probably wouldn't exactly like it, but they also don't want to live in the same country as tyrannical monarchists. Besides, the invasion happened IOTL, so they must have been at least somewhat open to it.

 

[Gabingston]

The probably wouldn't exactly like it, but they also don't want to live in the same country as tyrannical monarchists. Besides, the invasion happened IOTL, so they must have been at least somewhat open to it.

Will Quebec remain French, or just be flooded by Anglo settlers like Louisiana was?

 

[piratedude]

Isnt the name Quebec anachronastic? My understanding was that the region was called lower canada (as opposed to upper canada, aka Ontario)

 

[triscreen]

Isnt the name Quebec anachronastic? My understanding was that the region was called lower canada (as opposed to upper canada, aka Ontario)

During the Revolutionary War, it was called the Province of Quebec. The British split it up into Lower and Upper Canada in the 1790's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Quebec_(1763–1791)

Will Quebec remain French, or just be flooded by Anglo settlers like Louisiana was?

That remains to be seen.

 

[galanx]

The predominantly French-Canadian population of Quebec mostly treated the Americans as liberators, and almost all of them at least tolerated the American presence
....
The probably wouldn't exactly like it, but they also don't want to live in the same country as tyrannical monarchists..

Any particular reason in this they would come to the exact opposite beliefs and attitudes they actually had?

 

[FranzAncheNo]

One word.
Watched.

 

[Thomas Wilkins]

Somewhere in the future: "Je suis Americain"

 

[Wolttaire]

I call on @Lusitania

 

[triscreen]

Chapter II

When word reached London of the colonists' victories, an uproar occurred from Westminister to Saint James's. William Pitt and his Whigs urged the British to peacefully negotiate the end of the war, and somehow reintegrate America into the British Empire. However, George III and Lord North, the Prime Minister, insisted that they must continue the fight until the Continental Army was defeated.

Back in America, the revolutionaries were ready to take the next step - the final break with Britain. Encouraged by Common Sense, the Continental Congress quickly went to work drafting a Declaration of Independence, choosing Thomas Jefferson to write it. Although it was ratified on July 2nd, independence went into effect on July 4th, and that date and Jefferson's name would forever become a crucial part of American history.

In military affairs, a minor British attack was repelled by a Quebecois militia. Meanwhile, after winning the siege of Boston, George Washington moved the Continental Army to defend New York, assuming that the British would attack there. However, without Canada to resupply from, the British, under General William Howe, decided that it would cost too much bloodshed to take. Instead, Howe secretly amassed troops in British Florida, and attacked through there in August 1776.

By the time September was over, the British had cemented control over the colony of Georgia. The most reluctant to join the new United States of America due to threats from Native Americans, Georgia held a significant amount of loyalists, who helped the British take over Georgia. Moving up through South Carolina, the British found their first major obstacle in the city of Charleston. They dug into a siege, and with the help of the Royal Navy, Charleston fell in December 1776.

Despite this, the British trek north was not easy. Inland, British forces and supply lines were harassed by Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox", slowing their advance in South Carolina by using proto-guerilla tactics. John Laurens, who was sympathetic to the anti-slavery cause, used money and supplies stolen from the British to recruit slaves, which he freed in return for their service. Many slave owners were more than happy to help fight the British in return for some compensation, especially now that the British were on their doorstep.

With the unexpected British attack in the south, the Americans hastily organized a force. While General Washington would stay in New York in case the British tried to launch an attack on it or New England, Benedict Arnold, who had proven himself in Canada, would be sent to the southern colonies to try to stop it, along with a large force. If Arnold could defeat the British army, then America's chances at gaining independence would be much higher.

Although things weren't going too well in December 1776, there was a spot of hope. A delegation led by Benjamin Franklin and Christophe Pélissier was sent to Paris, to try to gain aid from the French in the war. When they arrived in early 1777, they were extremely successful - while Franklin charmed many in Paris with his scientific knowledge and legendary wit, Pélissier implored the French to intervene on behalf of their former colony. The French were impressed with the American victories at Boston but especially Quebec, and although they held off on joining the war, French supplies were soon coming by the boatload, and on one of those ships would come a very eager Frenchman...​

 

[Lusitania]

I call on @Lusitania

Ok while I try to not make comments on TL I will try to give my two cents on this one. While reading a lot about American attempt to involve québécois is the revolution I got the feeling of the following:
1) deep hatred by many American rebels towards Catholics. This was in someways do to Spanish who attacked southerners and armed natives in south being catholic but mostly from anti catholic attitudes passed over several generations of American colonist. Many of whom were descendants of the original settlers whom many had fled to America’s to avoid religious persecution. This was so prevalent in the continental army that George Washington had to personally intervene to try and stop it.
2) in most 13 colonies you could not become voting citizen if you were catholic
3) hatred of québécois was very deep rooted because they are perceived as being the beneficiary of the Quebec Act that restricted the English speaking colonists to the east side of Appalachia mountains.
4) the québécois had a very good relationship with the British. That being the elite and Catholic Church did. The peasants followed what the Catholic Church said. So that US soldiers are welcomed as liberators, not possible since the people been told how bad they were and that them being unbelievers they were going to hell.
5) how a bunch of anti-catholic soldiers going to be nice to people who they learned to hate and practicing a faith they despised. Not going to happen.
6) military wise ok, but politically not going to happen
7) I have posted repeatedly how would a bunch of anti catholic English speaking wasp going to welcome French speaking Catholics into the constitution convention? What happens when they get there, are you expected them to be tested fairly? What language they going to speak? What language the constitution going to written in English only or both French snd English.
8) are you going to argue for American occupation of Quebec when they walk out conference because being despised and treated like second class citizens?
9) French speaking Catholics going to demand equality meaning English and French equal not English forced down their throats. British not demand so therefore Americans can’t. What English colonist response to it?

 

[46566]

Looking good. With this looking so good for the Americans would the Prussians be more inclined to help the revolution? In OTL the Prussians wanted to recognize America after the war was over. After the war if Barvian succession they quieted down in support. Would they try to seize Hannover while the British are busy in North America? This could snowball into Prussia getting Hannover and Austria getting Barvia easier. How would a stronger (potentially) Austria and Prussia effect Napoleon? With Quebec looking to be in the US this TL would the French sell the Louisiana purchase sooner if at all? Would Napoleon rise if France doesn't lose allot of money in the revolution?

 

[triscreen]

Ok while I try to not make comments on TL I will try to give my two cents on this one. While reading a lot about American attempt to involve québécois is the revolution I got the feeling of the following:
1) deep hatred by many American rebels towards Catholics. This was in someways do to Spanish who attacked southerners and armed natives in south being catholic but mostly from anti catholic attitudes passed over several generations of American colonist. Many of whom were descendants of the original settlers whom many had fled to America’s to avoid religious persecution. This was so prevalent in the continental army that George Washington had to personally intervene to try and stop it.
2) in most 13 colonies you could not become voting citizen if you were catholic
3) hatred of québécois was very deep rooted because they are perceived as being the beneficiary of the Quebec Act that restricted the English speaking colonists to the east side of Appalachia mountains.
4) the québécois had a very good relationship with the British. That being the elite and Catholic Church did. The peasants followed what the Catholic Church said. So that US soldiers are welcomed as liberators, not possible since the people been told how bad they were and that them being unbelievers they were going to hell.
5) how a bunch of anti-catholic soldiers going to be nice to people who they learned to hate and practicing a faith they despised. Not going to happen.
6) military wise ok, but politically not going to happen
7) I have posted repeatedly how would a bunch of anti catholic English speaking wasp going to welcome French speaking Catholics into the constitution convention? What happens when they get there, are you expected them to be tested fairly? What language they going to speak? What language the constitution going to written in English only or both French snd English.
8) are you going to argue for American occupation of Quebec when they walk out conference because being despised and treated like second class citizens?
9) French speaking Catholics going to demand equality meaning English and French equal not English forced down their throats. British not demand so therefore Americans can’t. What English colonist response to it?

First of all, thanks for commenting. I always enjoy a good debate! Anyways, I'll try to refute your points. Here goes -

1. There was anti-Catholic sentiment in America, and that will come into play later in the timeline after the war is over. However, as you said, many in the Continental Congress such as Washington were for the toleration of Catholics, and in fact one member of the Continental Congress was Catholic (Charles Carroll). In addition, Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony, and the colonies tolerated its presence. The American colonists wouldn't have as much of a problem with the Quebecois as long as they stayed in Quebec and didn't try to influence the other states.
2. See #1.
3. The American colonists and the Quebecois have had a long-standing rivalry at this point, with all of the colonial wars and Quebec taking all of American land. However, it is understood that after the revolution the Old Northwest will become open to settlement by Americans. Besides, the Americans are very much disadvantaged in this fight, and they'd probably take all the help they can get.
4. Considering that the Quebecois had just been conquered by the British one and a half decades ago, I would say that its no stretch to have them welcome the Americans, especially since the Americans are giving them rights and not trying to kick them out of Canada like the British did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians). In addition, I couldn't find any evidence that the Catholic Church was against the American Revolution. What I did find was that the Catholic Church set up a diocese in Baltimore shortly after the Revolution was over.
5. Not all Americans were violently anti-Catholic (such as Washington). There was some prejudice, but the soldiers wouldn't exactly persecute the Quebecois. Even if they were violently anti-Catholic (which some of them certainly were), they would be kept in place by their commanders, such as Washington and Montgomery (I know that Montgomery is Irish, so he may or may not be Catholic himself).
6. This is a general statement that's been addressed by my other notes.
7. We haven't arrived at the writing of the Constitution yet. There may not even be a Constitution. We're still in 1776/1777, so the Constitution's a good ten years off.
8. With all of my other points, I think that it's clear that the Quebecois wouldn't be treated as second-class citizens by their government.
9. The language barrier will be an interesting thing to work out, and how that shall be solved will remain to be seen.

And a couple of other points that aren't exactly refutations to strengthen my argument...

- Freedom of religion was an extremely important part of the American "expiriment". The government won't openly discriminate against the Quebecois, although there might be some anti-Catholic sentiment.
- IOTL, there were French-speaking Catholics who were welcomed and treated as heroes by the American public - the French themselves. More specifically, Lafayette. When he returned in the 1820's, he was paraded around like a hero and visited every single US state. It just shows that America is willing to tolerate and even celebrate French-speaking Catholics if they align with America in the American Revolution (which the Quebecois certainly have).

Looking good. With this looking so good for the Americans would the Prussians be more inclined to help the revolution? In OTL the Prussians wanted to recognize America after the war was over. After the war if Barvian succession they quieted down in support. Would they try to seize Hannover while the British are busy in North America? This could snowball into Prussia getting Hannover and Austria getting Barvia easier. How would a stronger (potentially) Austria and Prussia effect Napoleon? With Quebec looking to be in the US this TL would the French sell the Louisiana purchase sooner if at all? Would Napoleon rise if France doesn't lose allot of money in the revolution?

All of these questions and more will be answered in the next installments.

 

[piratedude]

Yeah, Britain needs to really screw things up in Quebec for the Quebecois to even consider the revolution, and unless you want it to break away after the constitutional convention then the americans need to become less francophobic/anti-catholic.

Although as i understand it, most of the American hatred for catholicism was fear that the Pope would interfere with their politics. Or at least thats how many expressed it. Maybe a Quebecois delegation to the papacy (or avignon, since its closer) to work out some sort of agreement?

 

[Lusitania]

First of all, thanks for commenting. I always enjoy a good debate! Anyways, I'll try to refute your points. Here goes -

1. There was anti-Catholic sentiment in America, and that will come into play later in the timeline after the war is over. However, as you said, many in the Continental Congress such as Washington were for the toleration of Catholics, and in fact one member of the Continental Congress was Catholic (Charles Carroll). In addition, Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony, and the colonies tolerated its presence. The American colonists wouldn't have as much of a problem with the Quebecois as long as they stayed in Quebec and didn't try to influence the other states.
2. See #1.
3. The American colonists and the Quebecois have had a long-standing rivalry at this point, with all of the colonial wars and Quebec taking all of American land. However, it is understood that after the revolution the Old Northwest will become open to settlement by Americans. Besides, the Americans are very much disadvantaged in this fight, and they'd probably take all the help they can get.
4. Considering that the Quebecois had just been conquered by the British one and a half decades ago, I would say that its no stretch to have them welcome the Americans, especially since the Americans are giving them rights and not trying to kick them out of Canada like the British did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians). In addition, I couldn't find any evidence that the Catholic Church was against the American Revolution. What I did find was that the Catholic Church set up a diocese in Baltimore shortly after the Revolution was over.
5. Not all Americans were violently anti-Catholic (such as Washington). There was some prejudice, but the soldiers wouldn't exactly persecute the Quebecois. Even if they were violently anti-Catholic (which some of them certainly were), they would be kept in place by their commanders, such as Washington and Montgomery (I know that Montgomery is Irish, so he may or may not be Catholic himself).
6. This is a general statement that's been addressed by my other notes.
7. We haven't arrived at the writing of the Constitution yet. There may not even be a Constitution. We're still in 1776/1777, so the Constitution's a good ten years off.
8. With all of my other points, I think that it's clear that the Quebecois wouldn't be treated as second-class citizens by their government.
9. The language barrier will be an interesting thing to work out, and how that shall be solved will remain to be seen.

And a couple of other points that aren't exactly refutations to strengthen my argument...

- Freedom of religion was an extremely important part of the American "expiriment". The government won't openly discriminate against the Quebecois, although there might be some anti-Catholic sentiment.
- IOTL, there were French-speaking Catholics who were welcomed and treated as heroes by the American public - the French themselves. More specifically, Lafayette. When he returned in the 1820's, he was paraded around like a hero and visited every single US state. It just shows that America is willing to tolerate and even celebrate French-speaking Catholics if they align with America in the American Revolution (which the Quebecois certainly have).



All of these questions and more will be answered in the next installments.

• The issue was that the Anti-Catholic attitude was wide spread and anti Quebecois even the leaders who portrait themselves as tolerant of Catholics ridiculed them amongst their peers.
• The Quebecois in 1777-1780 were much being controlled by the French elite and catholic church. The British had not conquered New France over 50 years. It had only been conquered in 1763 less than 20 years before ARW. Do not compare the conquest of Acadia and the conquest of the New France (Quebec) totally different events. In the case of Quebec the British had left the French alone and simply set themselves up in Quebec to control trade while the Quebecois were free to live their lives as French speaking Catholics.
• To compare Quebecois attitudes in 1820 to 1777 is impossible. In 1777 the Quebecois were masters of their own colony with little to no English presence. In 1820 the heavy weight of the British colonist and loyalist had moved into Canada and establish English dominance. So in 1777 the 100,000+ Quebecois were in no mood or spirit to join in the war and were content to let the war play out.
• You had indicated the Quebecois had sent a delegation to the continental congress. So what happens there and how they are treated? Will any of the proceeding be in French or the Quebecois expected to conduct themselves only in English thus proving to them and Quebecois that English is the language of the nation and French is secondary?
• I never stated the QUebecois would attack the Americans but I find it hard to believe and history shows us that anti-Catholic sentiment was greater amongst the rebels soldiers than leaders.

 

[Jon Crawford]

Awesome timeline.

Watched

 

[triscreen]

Yeah, Britain needs to really screw things up in Quebec for the Quebecois to even consider the revolution, and unless you want it to break away after the constitutional convention then the americans need to become less francophobic/anti-catholic.

Although as i understand it, most of the American hatred for catholicism was fear that the Pope would interfere with their politics. Or at least thats how many expressed it. Maybe a Quebecois delegation to the papacy (or avignon, since its closer) to work out some sort of agreement?

If you look above, then you should see a pretty lengthy refutation on my part to that.

• The issue was that the Anti-Catholic attitude was wide spread and anti Quebecois even the leaders who portrait themselves as tolerant of Catholics ridiculed them amongst their peers.
• The Quebecois in 1777-1780 were much being controlled by the French elite and catholic church. The British had not conquered New France over 50 years. It had only been conquered in 1763 less than 20 years before ARW. Do not compare the conquest of Acadia and the conquest of the New France (Quebec) totally different events. In the case of Quebec the British had left the French alone and simply set themselves up in Quebec to control trade while the Quebecois were free to live their lives as French speaking Catholics.
• To compare Quebecois attitudes in 1820 to 1777 is impossible. In 1777 the Quebecois were masters of their own colony with little to no English presence. In 1820 the heavy weight of the British colonist and loyalist had moved into Canada and establish English dominance. So in 1777 the 100,000+ Quebecois were in no mood or spirit to join in the war and were content to let the war play out.
• You had indicated the Quebecois had sent a delegation to the continental congress. So what happens there and how they are treated? Will any of the proceeding be in French or the Quebecois expected to conduct themselves only in English thus proving to them and Quebecois that English is the language of the nation and French is secondary?
• I never stated the QUebecois would attack the Americans but I find it hard to believe and history shows us that anti-Catholic sentiment was greater amongst the rebels soldiers than leaders.

1. Anti-Catholic attitude was wide-spread, yes. However, as I said, America was very much built on the freedom of religion. As long as the Quebecois stay on their own turf, there shouldn't be much tension.
2. The Expulsion of the Acadians took place in the 1750's and 1760's, the exact time when the British took over Quebec. So the two events are related.
3. The Quebecois would still experience the same toleration, if not more, that they had under the British. In addition, I was talking about American attitudes during the 1820's, not Quebecois.
4. Although there is some tension (mostly due to the language barrier), they are mostly treated well, and ITTL, there are Quebecois signatories to the Declaration of Independence. However, the proceedings are in English because the vast majority of the delegates are native English-speakers.
5. I don't think I ever discussed the Quebecois attacking the Americans. However, as I said in point #5, any anti-Catholics would be kept in check by the military leadership.

 

[Lusitania]

If you look above, then you should see a pretty lengthy refutation on my part to that.


1. Anti-Catholic attitude was wide-spread, yes. However, as I said, America was very much built on the freedom of religion. As long as the Quebecois stay on their own turf, there shouldn't be much tension.
2. The Expulsion of the Acadians took place in the 1750's and 1760's, the exact time when the British took over Quebec. So the two events are related.
3. The Quebecois would still experience the same toleration, if not more, that they had under the British. In addition, I was talking about American attitudes during the 1820's, not Quebecois.
4. Although there is some tension (mostly due to the language barrier), they are mostly treated well, and ITTL, there are Quebecois signatories to the Declaration of Independence. However, the proceedings are in English because the vast majority of the delegates are native English-speakers.
5. I don't think I ever discussed the Quebecois attacking the Americans. However, as I said in point #5, any anti-Catholics would be kept in check by the military leadership.

But why would the Quebecois be constrained to their area? why are they not free to move and remain French and Catholic. American protestants English would move to Quebec and expect to setup their church and speak English. Seems condescending. "As long as they stay on their turf." Quebec population doubled by 1800 what is to stop them from moving to what is Michigan or Ontario and establish French catholic speaking majority US States?

As for treatment of the Quebecois, I am sorry but the treatment of the Acadians was totally different and stopped as soon as New France was conquered. In the preceding wars the presence of the Acadians was viewed as risk that a population sympathetic to France would rise up against the British. As soon as New France was captured and the French presence in North America was removed there was no more risk and they were left alone. The Quebecois never suffered the same fate or were attacked by the British. The British attitude was to leave them alone and to profit from Trade.

As for English language comment shows the attitude of the English speaking population. How can people who speak a different language be equal when their language is not equal? It seems that you are saying you equal as long as you can speak English and act like us otherwise no.

You stated that the Quebecois did treat them nicely, yes I agreed but will state any prolonged presence by American protestant soldiers would lead to attacks on the Quebecois and bad relationship start.

Plus congress would not afford to keep protestant soldiers in Quebec but would want Quebec to raise its own militia and the English speaking soldiers come south to provide relief in south where they needed.