Politics and Expansion of an Independent Canada

La Canada is deprived of the Ohio Country for spite. Francophones and, later Irish, colonize Ontario and eventually move westward with the fur trade. French becomes by the present day the main language in what we know as the Prairie Provinces.
 
I'm not sure that a French Canada not fighting against the prospect of being overwhelmed by Anglo settlers and Anglo business and under occupation by an Anglo government would necessarily be so conservative or stay so conservative for long.

They can be opposed to anglophone settlement without abandoning their culturally conservative traits. Consider how strong Catholicism remained among the Irish people, for example.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
They can be opposed to anglophone settlement without abandoning their culturally conservative traits. Consider how strong Catholicism remained among the Irish people, for example.

That reading is kind of the opposite of what I was trying to say. What I am trying to say was that if there was a healthy sized zone [Quebec, Quebec & Ontario north of Great Lakes, or Quebec & Ontario north of the York peninsula] that was under firm French Canadian authority or French French rule, les canadiens are probably likely to have a *less* defensive mindset and be more prone to evolve away from conservatism. Being under British rule, or being an outnumbered state in a mainly English speaking union of states, would probably stimulate a defensive conservatism.
 
My line of thought is basically the same as Socrates; Canada/Quebec needs the US as an ally in the short and long term, moreso in the former. Their population was minuscule, and that 90k estimate encompasses the entire old Province of Quebec, and includes both Canadien and English settlers. It needs time to grow and expand as a nation; it cannot do that if the large, constantly expanding and settling nation to the south turns its ire north.

That's why I would say that Southern Ontario is unlikely; that gives a straight line border for New York to continue their claims west. The upper border is the only natural boundary in Southern Ontario that exists in any real sense of the world; the Blue mountains bisect the landmass. Either one of those borders gives them Toronto and the majority of what would become the golden horseshoe. Any settlements past that are sparse and virtually new. Cede Southern Ontario, gain a large portion of Northern Maine/New Brunswick with large Acadian population, and most of the French-speaking population is kept in Quebec.

Also, what are the numbers on French emigration before the revolution? And were those settlers those who did not leave France because the only options were not Catholic enough, or did they not leave because they did not have the means to afford passage?

I understand your point and you are right that, logicaly and demographicaly, it make sense. It's mainly about the fact that you put Guyana and the caribbean isles as possible territory (while Canada wont have a proper navy for decades) but southern Ontario, which was attributed to Canada OTL even before the royalist settlements (Kingston was founded at the end of the ARW) is not ?

For the immigrants, the kingdom of France have always put the bare minimal effort in developping its north-american colony but an independant Canada might want to sponsor immigrants, especially during the famines at the end of the 1780 decade.
 
That reading is kind of the opposite of what I was trying to say. What I am trying to say was that if there was a healthy sized zone [Quebec, Quebec & Ontario north of Great Lakes, or Quebec & Ontario north of the York peninsula] that was under firm French Canadian authority or French French rule, les canadiens are probably likely to have a *less* defensive mindset and be more prone to evolve away from conservatism. Being under British rule, or being an outnumbered state in a mainly English speaking union of states, would probably stimulate a defensive conservatism.

Exactly. I would argue that the conservatism of the Canadiens came about only in the mid-19th century, as a consequence of being encapsulated in a potentially overwhelming British Empire. If the Canadiens were, instead, the nucleus of an independent Francophone polity, much would become different.

I would not bet against the Canadiens keeping Ontario. The OTL division of Canada into French Lower and British Upper Canada in 1791 occurred only as a direct result of Britain leapfrogging over the settlement frontier, which reached the shores of Lake Ontario in New York State only in the 1820s, a generation later. Remember, Detroit--Détroit, rather--retained its Francophone Catholic majority into the 1820s. I see no reason why the Canadiens could not hold all Ontario.

As for migration from France, the big difference between this TL and OTL is that you would not have had an independent Francophone country in North America to attract migrants from France. If things go differently, and well for Canada, I could imagine Canada emerging as a major destination for French migrants. I certainly think it would be able to assimilate non-French migrants--even OTL, Irish Catholics could assimilated into the general Francophone population.
 
Last edited:
As for expansion, the western prairies--the OTL Canadian Prairie provinces--are an obvious possibility, on ethnic and geographc grounds. (I don't think the Ohio country can be retained. Maybe Michigan, maybe?) The big problem is that Rupert's Land would be a territory of the Hudson's Bay Company, which--barring unexpected events in Europe--would be British. How likely is it that Britain would abandon these fur territories to a French polity, even if politically independent of Paris?
 
As for expansion, the western prairies--the OTL Canadian Prairie provinces--are an obvious possibility, on ethnic and geographc grounds. (I don't think the Ohio country can be retained. Maybe Michigan, maybe?) The big problem is that Rupert's Land would be a territory of the Hudson's Bay Company, which--barring unexpected events in Europe--would be British. How likely is it that Britain would abandon these fur territories to a French polity, even if politically independent of Paris?
<<In 1782, during the American Revolutionary War, a French squadron under Jean-François de Galaup, comte de Lapérouse captured and demolished York Factory and Prince of Wales Fort in support of the American rebels.>> (Wikipedia)
With the destruction of its two biggest settlement, and the lost of Canada to the Canadian, the Hudson Bay company would have a hard time keeping it. It would be easy for the French/Canadian to occupy the land and gain it in the peace treaty.
 
I understand your point and you are right that, logicaly and demographicaly, it make sense. It's mainly about the fact that you put Guyana and the caribbean isles as possible territory (while Canada wont have a proper navy for decades) but southern Ontario, which was attributed to Canada OTL even before the royalist settlements (Kingston was founded at the end of the ARW) is not ?

For the immigrants, the kingdom of France have always put the bare minimal effort in developping its north-american colony but an independant Canada might want to sponsor immigrants, especially during the famines at the end of the 1780 decade.

Mostly I placed those as I was wargaming in my head that, in the event of some war with the French, they might end up with the British letting Canada take control of the colonies, especially if Quebec plays host to the King of France. The US was aligned to the kingdom, and owed it debts, and that is the reason that I put those in the 'possibly' category: the colonies, belonging to the Kingdom of France, stay with the Kingdom and Quebec/Canada inherits them. Even a republic might keep them, especially if the British have more difficulties in the long run; assign them to Quebec so that they have a blank check on the amount of lumber necessary for production of ships in Halifax.

And... Kingston is definitely in that line that I showed? Heck, the vast majority of Southern Ontario is in the definitely portion, especially the highly populated portion. The remainder between Huron and Erie is much more sparsely populated than the land to the northeast. Regardless of whether it was attributed, it was also claimed by multiple US states as well; such a line would depend on the treaty written, but I see New York at least wanting to press the claims.
 
As for expansion, the western prairies--the OTL Canadian Prairie provinces--are an obvious possibility, on ethnic and geographc grounds. (I don't think the Ohio country can be retained. Maybe Michigan, maybe?) The big problem is that Rupert's Land would be a territory of the Hudson's Bay Company, which--barring unexpected events in Europe--would be British. How likely is it that Britain would abandon these fur territories to a French polity, even if politically independent of Paris?

Without access to the St. Lawrence, access to Rupert's Land is restricted to 4 months out of the year; even if they are retained by Great Britain, it is only at the pleasure of the US and Quebec; they certainly can't reinforce it from the Maritimes otherwise, and Loyalists will be fleeing to the Caribbean and to other regions. They definitely wouldn't be staying in Canada.

Demographically, Quebec is in a weak position, as they are lacking the Anglophone settlers that were the core of Canada's eventual growth. Even the return of the Acadians will likely balance out any losses by the Loyalists leaving Quebec. As such, it is difficult to see them retaining even more territory than OTL, especially as that territory was claimed by 4 states (New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia). Virginia especially is an issue, but all of the states will campaign to see their claims recognized; and they were far stronger than Quebec would have been. The Great Lakes were and are a good border, and

The Prairie Provinces are actually more easily accessible through the Mississippi as they would be overland; the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes would be the main avenue for expansion along the littoral, but once you reach the end of that, the Mississippi river overland to the Red River of the North is your next best bet. I wouldn't see Quebec getting the entire of the plains provinces; they don't have the demographic strength to grow that face. They may be able to get a favorable treaty line drawn, but the entirety of the provinces will be difficult (ignoring how watershed boundaries are always difficult to demarcate). The US was interested in northern expansion OTL; that won't change with a weaker, if friendlier, northern neighbor.

That's why I like Lake Superior to the Lake of the words to Lake Manitoba. All can be drawn along natural boundaries which help to eliminate border disputes; and all have precedence.
 
Without access to the St. Lawrence, access to Rupert's Land is restricted to 4 months out of the year; even if they are retained by Great Britain, it is only at the pleasure of the US and Quebec; they certainly can't reinforce it from the Maritimes otherwise, and Loyalists will be fleeing to the Caribbean and to other regions. They definitely wouldn't be staying in Canada.

Demographically, Quebec is in a weak position, as they are lacking the Anglophone settlers that were the core of Canada's eventual growth. Even the return of the Acadians will likely balance out any losses by the Loyalists leaving Quebec. As such, it is difficult to see them retaining even more territory than OTL[.]

If English Canada's population was arbitrarily limited to the people who were in British North America in (say) 1830, then it would likewise be difficult to imagine this population expanding.

In a scenario where Canada is not part of the British Empire for any length of time, when it will be an independent state and where the French fact will not be a minority culture but in fact a dominant one, there is little to no reason to think that French Canada is incapable of similar growth.

In the scenario described, the Loyalists would never have settled anywhere in the Great Lakes basin.
 
If English Canada's population was arbitrarily limited to the people who were in British North America in (say) 1830, then it would likewise be difficult to imagine this population expanding.

In a scenario where Canada is not part of the British Empire for any length of time, when it will be an independent state and where the French fact will not be a minority culture but in fact a dominant one, there is little to no reason to think that French Canada is incapable of similar growth.

In the scenario described, the Loyalists would never have settled anywhere in the Great Lakes basin.

It's hardly an arbitrary limitation; the Anglophone community only became a majority in the aftermath of the revolution; the only reason Upper Canada existed as a separate entity from Lower Canada is due to the initial settlement after the revolution.

That, and it won't have the support of the remainder of the British Empire, nor of the rest of the English settlers that were would have come later from the Maritimes or elsewhere. The major support might be from Irish settlers, but if a Francophone-enforced zone occurs, then it is likely that some, not all, will head to the US or elsewhere instead. Mind, I'd actually have to look up the numbers on French/Spanish immigration later, but it never was substantial previously, and wouldn't pick up until quite later.

Besides, territorial concerns would have to be addressed before that arbitrary cutoff point. Negotiations between the US and Great Britain would lead to different borders than between the US and an independent Quebec, primarily because of the lack of sponsor. I certainly don't see them going from coast to coast, although, really, who knows? The human side of it could even come to play; a really aggressive Quebec that manages to provide a sizable contribution to the revolution likely would have the political capital to try and keep larger borders; the French may offer it as part of the deal as well. Quebec managing to keep larger borders because of diplomatic finesse isn't the surprising part; keeping it due to demographic realities is the difficulty.
 
It's hardly an arbitrary limitation; the Anglophone community only became a majority in the aftermath of the revolution; the only reason Upper Canada existed as a separate entity from Lower Canada is due to the initial settlement after the revolution.

A settlement, I would note, that partly existed so as to constrain French Canada's potential expansion. As I noted elsewhere, the Loyalist settlement leapfrogged over the settlement frontier. Had this not happened, and had Upper and Lower Canada remained united in a single Francophone polity, we likely would have seen migrants from the St. Lawrence valley expand upstream well ahead of any Anglo-American settlers.

That, and it won't have the support of the remainder of the British Empire, nor of the rest of the English settlers that were would have come later from the Maritimes or elsewhere. The major support might be from Irish settlers, but if a Francophone-enforced zone occurs, then it is likely that some, not all, will head to the US or elsewhere instead. Mind, I'd actually have to look up the numbers on French/Spanish immigration later, but it never was substantial previously, and wouldn't pick up until quite later.

What we're talking about, a Québec that is independent from the 1780s, is something without precedent.

Besides, territorial concerns would have to be addressed before that arbitrary cutoff point. Negotiations between the US and Great Britain would lead to different borders than between the US and an independent Quebec, primarily because of the lack of sponsor. I certainly don't see them going from coast to coast, although, really, who knows? The human side of it could even come to play; a really aggressive Quebec that manages to provide a sizable contribution to the revolution likely would have the political capital to try and keep larger borders; the French may offer it as part of the deal as well. Quebec managing to keep larger borders because of diplomatic finesse isn't the surprising part; keeping it due to demographic realities is the difficulty.

The demographic realities, I've argued, would work in the favour of the Canadiens' state. Even if nothing else changed, they would have a generation to do things they were constrained from doing before.
 
Top