If the Colonists take Quebec?

I've been reading a lot of stuff on Benedict Arnold's march to Canada and the subsequent battles that took place such as Quebec, the various engagments around Montreal, then up through the action down Lake Champlain. In Desjardin's Through A Howling Wilderness, he brings up a very interesting point. In the conclusion to the book, he argues that had the invading colonists been successful in capturing Quebec, that it very likely could have resulted in the United States of American not becoming its own nation. His argument is that if the Americans capture Quebec, then the British would realize that their chances of military success are seriously weakened and that it would be in their interest to reach some kind of compromise with the colonists.

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this point. It's a very interesting thing to consider, because it seems that had the colonists caught a break as simple as someone continuing the attack with Montgomery's forces after the general was killed, that Quebec still might have been taken. What is so intriguing for me is the idea that possibly losing such a huge opportunity like the taking of Quebec may ultimately have helped in the course of independence.

So what would you say? If the colonists take Quebec and control both that city and Montreal in late 1775/early 1776, do the English then come to the bargaining table... or do things still follow a similar course toward independence?
 
The British would still control Nova Scotia, and the critical port of Halifax. Florida would still be held as well, though it's not nearly as well developed, it could still serve as a position from which to threaten the southern colonies. Given that the colonies cannot prevent naval descents anyplace the British wish to grab in force, New York could still be taken (relatively) easily. Most other ports would be similarly threatened, and the vast majority of colonists live near the shore.

Taking all that into account, I'm not sure the loss of Canada/Quebec would be viewed as a critical blow to the British strategic outlook. Sure, it means they have fewer options in a war; but those in Britain who wished to take a hard line against the colonies didn't think that the colonists could (or would) effectively resist in a real war.

After successfully taking Quebec, the colonial leadership is also going to feel more confident. A success like that offers lots of rhetorical ammunition to the radicals and vocal separatists for whom compromise with Britain is an anathema. Moderating their demands from a position of strength isn't impossible, but seems less likely.

London would have to accept or offer good terms to really turn things around at this point, but Quebec probably isn't enough to panic Parliament into doing that.

Perhaps those with better knowledge of inscrutable British government at the time could suggest what they would offer?
 
So what would you say? If the colonists take Quebec and control both that city and Montreal in late 1775/early 1776, do the English then come to the bargaining table... or do things still follow a similar course toward independence?

Interesting idea - but there's a big difference between capturing a place and holding a place. Did the colonists have the manpower/supply line to do something like that?
 
It's a possibility. Paired, perhaps, with the taking of Halifax, it could be the impetus needed to get the conciliation party a boost in Britain. The coercion party was almost entirely premised on the need to show the might of the crown. If that becomes impossible with the fall of Quebec and Halifax, then that need goes away. It'll upset Scotland and the northern boroughs, but conciliation was still entirely possible in the years before Saratoga and the entry of the French.
 
Interesting idea - but there's a big difference between capturing a place and holding a place. Did the colonists have the manpower/supply line to do something like that?

Not really. It was one of the reasons the colonists failed to take the place to begin with. Couple that with the ability of the British to land a force south of them and cut off their line of retreat, I don't think Arnold would hang around too long. The colonials would probably march south the following spring.
 
Question is what does taking Quebec do to the French decision to support the Rebellion, or to the Post War Treaty of Paris.

If the Colonials are holding Quebec, Britian may give up on NAmerica, post war.
 
The real question is: If it's a successful version of the Continental Army Invasion of 1775/76, and Quebec falls and the Canadians join the revolution, and this emboldens the small revolutionary population in Nova Scotia, does Parliament seek a peaceful redress of grievances, a conference with colonial leaders, rather than sending troops?

That's a lot of "what if's" but if they all break just the right way, independence has not been declared at that point, perhaps Parliament decides it's better to hash out a compromise rather than fight a needless and costly war against Britain's own subjects in North America?

I believe at this point, prior to the Declaration of Independence, there still could have been a reconciliation between the two sides and they could have hashed out an equitable deal that covered the colonists primary concerns.

Maybe?
 
I've got a cool map that I made with just that scenario.

USvsUKv3.png
 

Dure

Banned
It is an interesting idea but off-hand I can't see anyone taking Quebec City which is rather a show stopper.

So we know what we are talking about does anyone know what the defences of Quebec City were at this time and how many troops were involved? Similarly, what could the colonists bring against the City?

Montreal is a different matter but on its own not enough.
 
It is an interesting idea but off-hand I can't see anyone taking Quebec City which is rather a show stopper.

So we know what we are talking about does anyone know what the defences of Quebec City were at this time and how many troops were involved? Similarly, what could the colonists bring against the City?

Montreal is a different matter but on its own not enough.

Montreal actually did fall during our timeline. A lot of things were against the Contientals during this battle. Weather was a huge concern. Arnold had 1100 men when he left Boston and only 600 when he arrived.

Weather was a huge detriment that inhibited both sides during this campaign. The British weren't about to send an expedition to relieve the city, so mainly militia defended it.

200-300 French Canadians also faught in this Army. They actually served throughout the war too, not just during this campaign. A possible POD would be to have more French Canadians see the Colonials as liberators and participate on their side. That really shouldn't be too hard either.

Given their lack of ammuniton, supplies and heavy siege equipment, the plan to attack during a snowstorm wasn't a bad idea. I think the feints did them more harm than good. By the time the main attacks came, the British were ready.

Certainly after the initial assault failed, the plan to besiege the city wasn't going to work. So your PODs would have to consist of either a more successful assault, or greater French Canadian participation.
 
Montreal actually did fall during our timeline. A lot of things were against the Contientals during this battle. Weather was a huge concern. Arnold had 1100 men when he left Boston and only 600 when he arrived.

Weather was a huge detriment that inhibited both sides during this campaign. The British weren't about to send an expedition to relieve the city, so mainly militia defended it.

200-300 French Canadians also faught in this Army. They actually served throughout the war too, not just during this campaign. A possible POD would be to have more French Canadians see the Colonials as liberators and participate on their side. That really shouldn't be too hard either.

Given their lack of ammuniton, supplies and heavy siege equipment, the plan to attack during a snowstorm wasn't a bad idea. I think the feints did them more harm than good. By the time the main attacks came, the British were ready.

Certainly after the initial assault failed, the plan to besiege the city wasn't going to work. So your PODs would have to consist of either a more successful assault, or greater French Canadian participation.

I always wondered what would have happened if Arnold had chosen an alternate route into Canada: The Connecticut River.

If he takes his men overland to present day Brattleborro Vermont, perhaps he can use river boats to ferry his men and equipment up a much easier route than the Kennebec and it brings him to just about the same spot he ended up emerging at in Canada anyway.

Perhaps, instead of 600 sick and half starved men with very little supplies, he reaches Canada, perhaps at the same time or a little sooner, but with more of his supplies, most of his initial force intact, and a force with much higher morale.

The weather was terrible, and did play a huge role in the events that happened OTL, BUT, morale after finishing the punishing trek up the Kennebec was in the crapper.

If Arnold had picked an alternate route, things may have been different.

That, and the upper Connecticut River Valley would have been an excellent place for naturally protected lines of communications and supply, perhaps enough to put support a workable siege.
 

Dure

Banned
Montreal actually did fall during our timeline. A lot of things were against the Contientals during this battle.

Montreal is not Quebec City.

In any case the American invasion of 1775 was a wee bit of a fiasco for all concerned.
 
Top