Question about Quebec in the Union

JJohnson

Banned
I had a question about a scenario I wanted to run by everyone. Let's say Quebec joined the Revolution, and is now part of the US. This includes all the territory they had surrounding the Great Lakes. Then, the Northwest Ordinance is passed, and they yield territory west of the Ottawa River for settlement. But now, Quebec does not pass the US Constitution, perhaps fearful of a stronger central government. Do they just 'lapse' and peacefully exit the Union here? Or does the passage by the other states forcefully draw Quebec into the new Constitution even if they don't pass it? Do they get de facto, if not de jure independence here?
 
I believe it went into affect after being ratified by 2/3rds of the states. So unless they're willing to take up arms, they would be under the constitution's jurisdiction.

Why would they seceede? As the constitution was interpreted at the time, nothing would stop them from having a state church and state language.
 
Let's say Quebec joined the Revolution, and is now part of the US. This includes all the territory they had surrounding the Great Lakes. Then, the Northwest Ordinance is passed, and they yield territory west of the Ottawa River for settlement. But now, Quebec does not pass the US Constitution, perhaps fearful of a stronger central government.

1. They wouldn't yield the territory if they hadn't already accepted the Constitution.
2. They wouldn't reject the Constitution.

…state church…

That changes within about a decade or so… Still, it wouldn't be an issue for Quebec.
 
1. They wouldn't yield the territory if they hadn't already accepted the Constitution.
2. They wouldn't reject the Constitution.



That changes within about a decade or so… Still, it wouldn't be an issue for Quebec.

Mass had a state church until the 1830s. It would be constitutional permitted until the passage of the 14th amendment.
 
Who's to say that Québec would even have been expected to give up all the lands west and south of their current borders? Virginia kept its lands south of the Ohio until it petitioned to be split off and become the state of Kentucky. It's quite possible that Québec might only give up its claims south of the Great Lakes, since it was only there that its claims overlapped with those of other states.
 

katchen

Banned
When Rhode Island was tardy about ratifying the Constitution, the Federal Government contemplated sending an embassy and treating with it as a separate nation, not sending an army to subdue it. I'm sure the new United States would extend Quebec the same courtesy.
 
Probably just me being nitpicky, but the name of the polity you're discussing was and should be Canada. It was 95% French, and they proudly called themselves Canadiens. Québec, for them, was just the name of their capital.

The name Québec referring to a state is much more recent. Only after Canada had become majority-English and budding Francophone nationalism was looking for a more pleasant identity than 'Low Canadians' and 'French Canadians' did Québec become a new rallying name.

Anyhow, this detail aside. There are a few difficulties with that POD, namely that the Canadians were still quite distrustful of their historical enemies in the 13 colonies. Significant tensions with the British though could change that. If Britain tried to force concessions on religion, that's the easiest selling point. Catholicism meant more than us than even French back then; and if the British had tried to oppress the Church, anything would have been possible. Canada also had significant interest in preserving it's territory in the Ohio valley.

So a perfect storm might be (even worse) British misrule, and enough openness on the part of your founding fathers to offer stronger state-powers in matters of culture and religion (or alternatively an amendment that addresses Canada's concerns in exchange for ratification), as well as guarantees for our economic interests in the valley. In time, simple demographics leave little chance that the Ohio could be prominently French Catholic either way; likely it would become states of it's own someday like in OTL.

North of the current US-Canadian border, however, the prospects of the French would be better in the short term. Without the exodus of English loyalists to Canada, nothing would threaten the Frenchness of Canada from Labrador to the Prairies; perhaps in time Acadie would be recovered as well (1812?). An American Canada this early would likely help cement Franco-American relations and without British occupation, further migrations and contact between France and Canada would occur throughout the 19th century. Ultimately, though, if the US tried to centralize as much as it did IOTL after the civil war, this would have been a problem. While being strongly anti-slavery, Canada would have probably shared with the south the vision of more autonomous states, as is likely in any scenario with strong cultural differences. Assuming it all sticks in one piece, who knows how much this transforms the balance of power and the role of DC in the long run? French Canadians were also much closer to the native tribes of the greater Ohio and Louisiana, with whom they had traded for 150 years, so it could have significant impact on how much the US ends up mistreating the natives as it marches west. If Canada retains control for a time of the Ohio valley, much of their traditional allied tribes would be on their turf, so to speak, and it could well mean greater surviving native populations in the long run.
 
When Rhode Island was tardy about ratifying the Constitution, the Federal Government contemplated sending an embassy and treating with it as a separate nation, not sending an army to subdue it. I'm sure the new United States would extend Quebec the same courtesy.
Though, they also contemplated passing a tariff against it. I don't think that'd affect Quebec/Canada anywhere near as hard, though.
 
When Rhode Island was tardy about ratifying the Constitution, the Federal Government contemplated sending an embassy and treating with it as a separate nation, not sending an army to subdue it. I'm sure the new United States would extend Quebec the same courtesy.

This. While Canada would possibly be somewhat more valuable to the new government because of its land, I cannot see it being treated any worse than Rhode Island was. "If you don't want to play by the new rules, you are out of the club" seems like a good working theory. The Constitutional Convention specifically allowed a new government to form once they had 9/13 (would it have been 10/14 with Canada?) but only between those states that ratified.

Now I could see a problem if Canada ceded land and land claims under the Northwest Ordinance, refused to ratify the Constitution, and then demanded its land back.
 
Probably just me being nitpicky, but the name of the polity you're discussing was and should be Canada. It was 95% French, and they proudly called themselves Canadiens. Québec, for them, was just the name of their capital.

The name Québec referring to a state is much more recent. Only after Canada had become majority-English and budding Francophone nationalism was looking for a more pleasant identity than 'Low Canadians' and 'French Canadians' did Québec become a new rallying name.
Not quite. Note the 'Qebec Act' of 1763, that the 13 colonies found so objectionable. It would, perhaps, be better to say that Canada and Quebec were partly synonymous at the time.
 
Who's to say that Québec would even have been expected to give up all the lands west and south of their current borders? Virginia kept its lands south of the Ohio until it petitioned to be split off and become the state of Kentucky. It's quite possible that Québec might only give up its claims south of the Great Lakes, since it was only there that its claims overlapped with those of other states.

New York claimed what would be Southern Ontario.
 
Not quite. Note the 'Qebec Act' of 1763, that the 13 colonies found so objectionable. It would, perhaps, be better to say that Canada and Quebec were partly synonymous at the time.

I'm with Bytewave - America's Articles of Confederation claimed 'Canada' would be admitted as a state if it wished to join. Until the concept of Upper and Lower Canada and by extension English and French Canadians came into existence, 'Canadian' pretty much meant 'French-speakers based in the St. Lawrence River valley.'
 
Wouldn't they want independence rather then joining the US? I can't see what would they win by joining the US.
 
Not quite. Note the 'Qebec Act' of 1763, that the 13 colonies found so objectionable. It would, perhaps, be better to say that Canada and Quebec were partly synonymous at the time.

If "Canada" enters under the articles of Confederation, it would be as the entire terr. of the former province of Quebec and as the state of Canada.

Fr. Canadians and Natives are the only ones with feet on the ground and thus there are advantages for the Federal government in negotiating only with Canada for access or severance of at least a part of the terr.

All states negotiated the relinquishment of their claims to the federal government. They are in the drivers seat here...

In light of their previous relations with the colonists its in their favour to preserve as much as they can for their own "future development" I can see them relinquishing the Ohio valley ( the region of most direct interest in the immediate term to American settlement in exchange for permanent retention and control of development of the northern terr.'s, say above the northern limit of Connecticut's claim. as these terr. are directly associated with the French Canada of previous regimes ( and almost certainly the terr. above the lakes if not "Western Canada" ). The Ohio and points south though would be associated with Louisiane of the French regime. If Washington rejects it, there is nothing preventing them from signing a separate agreement with say Virginia and making common cause with them over controlling development and immigration to the region.

Its to Washington's advantage to negotiate only with Canada rather than the myriad of states with conflicting claims...The federal government can them be made responsible for compensating any of these states for their "perceived" claims which might actually be nothing at all except for a few reserves and relieving some of their debts, as per OTL.

How settlement of the Ohio transpires this time around will colour the dialogue between Canada and the rest of the union, it could result in a very early exit. Perhaps even with French and British help.
 
Top