Impact of the failure of the American Revolution on Canada

After the success of the American Revolution, the British was forced to portions of the southwest of the Province of Quebec (including the Great Lakes) to the Americans (which became the Northwest Territory) and a influx of exiled Loyalists from the now-independent US created a substantial Protestant presence in Quebec.

With that being said, what kind of impact would the failure of the American Revolution have on Canadian history, culture, etc?

Since the American Revolution has so many PODs, I am making this a multiple choice

My points of divergence are:

  • The Patriots are unable to retreat from the disastrous Battle of Long Island, leading to the capture of George Washington.
  • Patrick Ferguson shoots and kills George Washington
  • Benedict Arnold either loses or is not present at the Battle of Saratoga, causing it to end in a Patriot defeat, convincing France to not aid the Patriots
  • The Royal Navy defeats the French fleet that IOTL, prevented them from reinforcing Cornwallis at Yorktown
  • After the Treaty of Paris is signed, something happens that prevents the US from forming as a country (The Articles of Confederation are kept, the Newburgh Conspiracy takes place, etc)

If you want, you can pick your own PODs.
 
After the success of the American Revolution, the British was forced to portions of the southwest of the Province of Quebec (including the Great Lakes) to the Americans (which became the Northwest Territory) and a influx of exiled Loyalists from the now-independent US created a substantial Protestant presence in Quebec.

With that being said, what kind of impact would the failure of the American Revolution have on Canadian history, culture, etc?

Since the American Revolution has so many PODs, I am making this a multiple choice

My points of divergence are:

  • The Patriots are unable to retreat from the disastrous Battle of Long Island, leading to the capture of George Washington.
  • Patrick Ferguson shoots and kills George Washington
  • Benedict Arnold either loses or is not present at the Battle of Saratoga, causing it to end in a Patriot defeat, convincing France to not aid the Patriots
  • The Royal Navy defeats the French fleet that IOTL, prevented them from reinforcing Cornwallis at Yorktown
  • After the Treaty of Paris is signed, something happens that prevents the US from forming as a country (The Articles of Confederation are kept, the Newburgh Conspiracy takes place, etc)

If you want, you can pick your own PODs.
If we could allow Britain to have standing chance to win the American Revolutionary War, then there are important PoDs will follow or the consequences that you’ve asked question regarding if the United Kingdom might have won the revolutionary war.

Here are the PoDs on how does American Revolutionary War ended with a disaster or failure are:
  • Implementing equal representation of the representatives from American colonies to Westminster if an unpopular laws would have been repealed.
  • Averting the implementation of laws that would trigger uproar in the British American colonies and OR
  • British forces would have a better intelligence in performing counterattacks against the Continental Army while the Continental Army would terribly suffer harsh winter that could hamper an effort for the Continental Army to win and takes Hudson River to cut Continental Army off in New England from the rest of the colonies.
There are important consequences that if American Revolution was ended in failure, then an earlier British dominions would be carved out or a unified continental dominion would be created after the formation but it will be an independent dominion that encompasses the OTL US (excluding southwestern portion and Texas) and Canada but the capital will be Philadelphia and the culture would be a mish-mash or mixed between the British and French.
 
Last edited:
With a failed ARW the resulting British America is unlikely to be a single entity. Expect several dominion like polities to emerge.
 

Lusitania

Donor
With a failed ARW the resulting British America is unlikely to be a single entity. Expect several dominion like polities to emerge.

Another possibility would of been a united British North American dominion arising out of the ARW. This could of been accomplished as a means to allay many of the grievances that led to ARW or as a compromise between the colonists and crown at the onset of the ARW.
 
Another possibility would of been a united British North American dominion arising out of the ARW. This could of been accomplished as a means to allay many of the grievances that led to ARW or as a compromise between the colonists and crown at the onset of the ARW.
Unlikely. The ARW would have shown how precarious a hold there would be if the colonists had a single voice. Much better if the colonies aren't united.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Unlikely. The ARW would have shown how precarious a hold there would be if the colonists had a single voice. Much better if the colonies aren't united.
Well the book “two George’s” was centered on a united British North America but one where a ARW was averted at start by a treaty between George Washington and king George.
 
Well the book “two George’s” was centered on a united British North America but one where a ARW was averted at start by a treaty between George Washington and king George.
That book wasn't exactly grounded in the strongest plausibility though.
It's not an unenjoyable book but I wouldn't call it realistic.
 

Lusitania

Donor
That book wasn't exactly grounded in the strongest plausibility though.
It's not an unenjoyable book but I wouldn't call it realistic.
The POD was that king George not “crazy” and negotiates on behalf of colonists with parliament. What transpires after is up for debate.
 
The POD was that king George not “crazy” and negotiates on behalf of colonists with parliament. What transpires after is up for debate.
Even ignoring the lack of butterflies, why would either George or Parliament accept a single solitary North American parliament? Besides this thread is about a failed ARW not an avoided one.
 
Does that mean Quebec could be a independent country?
No, it does not - at least not in how we know it today. First off, Quebec as such did not exist in the 19th century IOTL until Confederation, being as it was a temporary name in the mid to late 18th century until 1791, covering the northern part of what was New France. Instead, we are talking first both of Canada as a whole (covering the same territory) and also the component pieces of Upper Canada (> Canada West > southern Ontario) and Lower Canada (> Canada East > southern and northeastern Quebec plus, for a brief period before reassigned to Newfoundland, Labrador), differentiated both by majority language and private law regime. With a considerable chunk of North America under British colonial rule or protection, that leaves possibilities open for autonomous entities/associated states to form, which could gradually become independent. In that case, an independent Canada as such could form, but only in part of what we now call Quebec and largely continuing patterns from British colonial rule. Second off, if Lower Canada did eventually strike out on its own as an independent entity, it would not be recognizable as Quebec IOTL is today. Things were much different in the 19th century; for one, apart from a failed attempt to replicate the English class system through the existing French colonial strictures (read: the seigneural system), Lower Canada was much more bilingual, even in Quebec City. Apart from having much less intensive American colonization of areas like the Cantons de l'Est/Eastern Townships, a failed ARW would not be noticed much in Lower Canada (Upper Canada, OTOH, . . .), if at all. Instead it would be a continuation of what already existed, with gradual empowerment of the majority and an orderly exit from colonial status different from the others. Now, if Canada with the 1774 boundaries were to embark on that journey, now we get somewhere interesting, since it is basically boundaries which are needed if a fur-trapping oriented economy were to be made viable. There's plenty of opportunity to shake things there, including encouragement of a Francophone majority (via natural growth and/or immigration) and encouragement of immigration from the UK, the Channel Islands, and Ireland directly, and in that case Scotland would be ideal as Scots law is a similar legal hybrid to what would eventually be envisioned for Canadian law at this point in time, as are the Channel Islands in particular (despite a base in Norman law rather than the Coutume de Paris, as Canada was accustomed to). The possibilities are endless. As such, talking of an independent Quebec sounds weird as you're talking of separating Quebec City and its immediate vicinity out of the RoC, which would not be viable as a separate entity.
 
Top