Quebec Act fails to pass?

[Jim Smitty]

British governor of Quebec Guy Carleton is found murder in his house in late 1773. The person who kills Carleton is never found. Because of the murder of the Guy Carleton, the British Paralement fails to pass the Quebec Act of 1774.

What effects would this have on the American Revolution?

 

[Jim Smitty]

Bump.

I need some feed back on this one guys, I want to make sure what I'm thinking is right.

 

[Elfwine]

Well, first off, why would it fall to pass?

Secondly, what happens instead? Status quo? Repressive measures?

Who becomes governor in his place?

From there we can look at events in the AR with a different governor.

 

[Jim Smitty]

Well, first off, why would it fall to pass?

Secondly, what happens instead? Status quo? Repressive measures?

Who becomes governor in his place?

From there we can look at events in the AR with a different governor.

I figure with the fact that Guy Carleton was murder and the person who did this act is never caught would cause Lord North to come down hard on Quebec just like Boston.

I would say repressive measures would follow news reaching London.

As to governor, I'm not sure on that one. Possibly Frederick Haidimand but I'm not sure on that one.

 

[Elfwine]

I figure with the fact that Guy Carleton was murder and the person who did this act is never caught would cause Lord North to come down hard on Quebec just like Boston.

I would say repressive measures would follow news reaching London.

As to governor, I'm not sure on that one. Possibly Frederick Haidimand but I'm not sure on that one.

1) Lord North was a lot of things, but I don't see him treating this as equivalent to Boston's continuous provocation and disobedience towards the government.

Not on his own, at least. And even if he's in favor, the rest of Parliament - well, a majority - has to agree.

2) See above on a majority. I mean, if Carleton was murdered and it was obviously done as (or seen as) a strike against the crown, that's one thing, but I'm not sure that would be automatically assumed.

3) Worth doing some research on - I'm afraid no possibilities are coming to mind for me.

 

[Color-Copycat]

I don't think it'd be enough to get the Quebecois to join in the War of Independence. They had too much beef with the anti-Catholic attitudes the American colonists harbored.

 

[Tripwire]

The British government has to pass some sort of act sorting out the governance of Quebec. They were actually bound by treaty with France not to disallow the Canadiens free practice of their religion. Although of course those treaties can be easily broken. Anyway, at most I can see the murder of the governor could whip up anti-Catholic sentiment and somehow cause the British to dither on passing new Quebec Acts. But as soon as the ARW breaks out, the British government will want to court the Quebecois, and will just pass a similar act then. I don't think the delay would cause much of a difference in overall Canadien-British-American relations.

 

[Simon]

I don't think it'd be enough to get the Quebecois to join in the War of Independence. They had too much beef with the anti-Catholic attitudes the American colonists harbored.

Indeed, wasn't the Quebec Act one of the Intolerable Acts that the rebels complained about? Always made me somewhat puzzled to see people having Quebec joining in the American revolt when the British at least tried to improve their standing with things like the Quebec Act whilst the Americans were strenuously against anything like it.

 

[Elfwine]

Indeed, wasn't the Quebec Act one of the Intolerable Acts that the rebels complained about? Always made me somewhat puzzled to see people having Quebec joining in the American revolt when the British at least tried to improve their standing with things like the Quebec Act whilst the Americans were strenuously against anything like it.

Exactly. The Americans and those in Parliament who were on the side of the Americans/the Opposition.

Liberty for Anglo-Saxon Protestants, fuck anyone else.

 

[Plumber]

The rebels were so viciously anti-Catholic that they preadmitted Canada into the Articles of Confederation. The Quebec Act gave pretty much all the land past the Proclamation of 1763 to Quebec. It was a big finger to the colonists, and that was what got it the Intolerable Act label.

Carleton becoming the Governor of North Carolina instead is part of the Dominion of Southern America TL.

 

[Elfwine]

The rebels were so viciously anti-Catholic that they preadmitted Canada into the Articles of Confederation. The Quebec Act gave pretty much all the land past the Proclamation of 1763 to Quebec. It was a big finger to the colonists, and that was what got it the Intolerable Act label.

Carleton becoming the Governor of North Carolina instead is part of the Dominion of Southern America TL.

The rebels were so viciously anti-Catholic that they complained bitterly about papism and all sorts of related evils.

But hey, let's totally ignore that because obviously the poor 13 colonies were being cruelly abused because the British government didn't do what they wanted.

I'd love to see the source for Canada's preadmission to the Articles of Confederation, and how much that reflected the feelings of the average American.

Because the Canadians certainly didn't feel their southern neighbors were tolerant and accepting of their Catholicism.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h648.html

 

[Gonzaga]

I'd love to see the source for Canada's preadmission to the Articles of Confederation, and how much that reflected the feelings of the average American.

Well, it's in the 11th article:

"Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

 

[Elfwine]

Well, it's in the 11th article:

"Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

Thanks.

That leaves the other half of the question - how many Americans were actually okay with the idea, and how much if at all did the Canadians believe it?

 

[Tripwire]

The rebels were so viciously anti-Catholic that they complained bitterly about papism and all sorts of related evils.

But hey, let's totally ignore that because obviously the poor 13 colonies were being cruelly abused because the British government didn't do what they wanted.

I'd love to see the source for Canada's preadmission to the Articles of Confederation, and how much that reflected the feelings of the average American.

Because the Canadians certainly didn't feel their southern neighbors were tolerant and accepting of their Catholicism.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h648.html

The rebels were so viciously anti-Catholic that they wrote a constitution that effectively outlawed any state discrimination against Catholics.

Meanwhile, back in Great Britain, Catholics still couldn't even vote, and when Parliament passed a law merely allowing them to inherit land and join the army, more than 200 people were killed in the ensuing rioting.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Thanks.

That leaves the other half of the question - how many Americans were actually okay with the idea, and how much if at all did the Canadians believe it?

At least some of the Canadiens did; when the US took Montreal in 1775, Congress was able to raise at least one regiment of Canadien troops who then served throughout the war (and it's not impossible there were Canadiens in other regiments, I suppose). No Quebec Act might tip things just enough that the US invasion of Canada in 1775 succeeds in taking Quebec City, which would obviously hinder (though probably not, bearing in mind the success of their capture of New York, Charleston, etc. stop) British reoccupation of Quebec.

In such an event, there might be a Quebec convention which would declare itself in league with the rebels (of course, this would likely happen with a certain degree of pressure on those who would rather not be in league with the US), and Quebec might become independent or part of the US (not that with the Articles of Confederation there was much difference...) after the war's conclusion, especially if parts (Montreal seems particularly suitable) remain out of British control through the war. The Maritimes, particularly Nova Scotia with the British base at Halifax, would likely remain part of Britain, though.

I would tend to think that Quebec and the United States would be more co-belligerents in such a scenario than truly allies, except on an individual level. Perhaps the Continental Congress could win over the Canadiens over time, but it would not be especially easy.

 

[Elfwine]

The rebels were so viciously anti-Catholic that they wrote a constitution that effectively outlawed any state discrimination against Catholics.

Meanwhile, back in Great Britain, Catholics still couldn't even vote, and when Parliament passed a law merely allowing them to inherit land and join the army, more than 200 people were killed in the ensuing rioting.

The men who wrote the Constitution were reasonable men. That doesn't mean the rabble rousers and hotheads and so on who were at the forefront of exaggerating every issue and claiming British tyranny in every policy were.

Truth is life: From that article, "Hazen and his staff were authorized by Congress to recruit in other areas to supplement the ranks." does not suggest that it was (or even expected to be) a particularly Canadian unit.

 

[Workable Goblin]

The men who wrote the Constitution were reasonable men. That doesn't mean the rabble rousers and hotheads and so on who were at the forefront of exaggerating every issue and claiming British tyranny in every policy were.

Truth is life: From that article, "Hazen and his staff were authorized by Congress to recruit in other areas to supplement the ranks." does not suggest that it was (or even expected to be) a particularly Canadian unit.

You haven't read far enough. That authorization came in 1777, by which time there were distinct difficulties in recruiting Canadiens. Originally, it (like the 1st Canadien) was formed from inhabitants of Quebec, and was expected to recruit in Quebec.

In any event, the point was that the rebels could find at least some Canadiens willing to work with them, and if they had been successful, maybe more.

 

[Elfwine]

You haven't read far enough. That authorization came in 1777, by which time there were distinct difficulties in recruiting Canadiens. Originally, it (like the 1st Canadien) was formed from inhabitants of Quebec, and was expected to recruit in Quebec.

In any event, the point was that the rebels could find at least some Canadiens willing to work with them, and if they had been successful, maybe more.

That there were "distinct difficulties" says something about the lack of Canadians coming south to join. Kentucky Confederates come to mind.

 

[Workable Goblin]

That there were "distinct difficulties" says something about the lack of Canadians coming south to join. Kentucky Confederates come to mind.

By distinct difficulties, I was making a pointed reminder of the fact that Canada was under complete British occupation, you know? I kinda doubt a Georgian or South Carolinian regiment would have had much luck in 1780, either.

Not to mention that it is much harder and more dangerous to travel from Canada to the US in 1777 than from Kentucky to Tennesee or points south or east in 1860. Not exactly comparable situations.

Besides, all you asked for was "how much if at all did the Canadiens believe it"; clearly, some did enough to risk their lives. Wheather enough did so enough to risk a lengthy and hazardous journey through a war zone to join the Continental Army at a time when it was not doing so hot is irrelevant to the question you asked. Now you're just nitpicking and moving goalposts.

 

[Elfwine]

By distinct difficulties, I was making a pointed reminder of the fact that Canada was under complete British occupation, you know? I kinda doubt a Georgian or South Carolinian regiment would have had much luck in 1780, either.

Not to mention that it is much harder and more dangerous to travel from Canada to the US in 1777 than from Kentucky to Tennesee or points south or east in 1860. Not exactly comparable situations.

Being under complete British occupation doesn't preclude traveling southward - or northward in the case of the Georgia and South Carolina Lines.

And more dangerous than in 1862-1864 (when most of the Confederate Kentucky regiments were raised - only a few were present in 1861), though?

Besides, all you asked for was "how much if at all did the Canadiens believe it"; clearly, some did enough to risk their lives. Wheather enough did so enough to risk a lengthy and hazardous journey through a war zone to join the Continental Army at a time when it was not doing so hot is irrelevant to the question you asked. Now you're just nitpicking and moving goalposts.

No, I'm pointing out that we have "a few" in all of two regiments that may or may not have ever reached full strength (to the extent any Continental regiment ever did, since expecting them to do better than say the Maryland Line is unfair). That's something as opposed to "total hostility", but it's not a particularly impressive turn out, either.

So my point is, and the reason for the original question (and follow up questions), is 'did Canadians in general believe this?"

We have, from the wiki article, 300+ for Livingston, 250+ for Hazen. Out of an authorizes strength of 1000+.

And this with the opportunity for them to join from September (when Livingston starts recruiting) to June (the American retreat) - Hazen managing 250 in February-April for a regiment authorized in January.

If it's "moving the goal posts" to find there being less than a regiment raised as a sign of a lack of enthusiasm, then I wonder how you take it by comparison to the success (such as it was) of Continental recruiting efforts elsewhere.