The Quebec Question

Lets say that during the American Revolution, the invasion of Quebec was successful and they manage to occupy Quebec untill the end of the war. In the Paris peace talks, America now holds Quebec as a bartoring tool. Which of the following should they do? Which is most likely?

1). Quebec is turned into the 14th State
2). They return quebec to the British in exchange for lessening their debts to Britain.
3). They trade Quebec for another piece of territory(Florida or maybe the Bahamas)
4). They give Quebec to France as a thank you gift for helping them win the Revolution
 
As is popularly assumed, Quebec will probably stick with the Americans until the more powerful Constitution is made, which it shall not join, and by default become a separate republic.

If it somehow stays with the nation I DO see it becoming more anglicized-I actually think that'd be a given-but without some shock to force it to stick, there will still be a primarily Catholic culture with a large French-speaking populace (still the majority, or somehow barely a minority at least).
 

General Zod

Banned
Lets say that during the American Revolution, the invasion of Quebec was successful and they manage to occupy Quebec untill the end of the war. In the Paris peace talks, America now holds Quebec as a bartoring tool. Which of the following should they do? Which is most likely?

1). Quebec is turned into the 14th State
2). They return quebec to the British in exchange for lessening their debts to Britain.
3). They trade Quebec for another piece of territory(Florida or maybe the Bahamas)
4). They give Quebec to France as a thank you gift for helping them win the Revolution

Keeping Quebec is the optimal choice (both long-term and in the eyes of the Patriots) but the Framers need to be good to appease the Quebecois when they write the Constitution (say allowing established Catholic Church in Quebec, language protection clausles) to make them stay in the USA.

If not (say Quebec already shows restive under American rule in 1783) as next-to-optimal choice they can partition province of Quebec with England, give French Lower Canada back to the King, keep scarcely-populated Upper Canada (AKA Ontario) (the Loyalists only fill Upper Canada after 1783) for American colonization. If at all possible, try putting clausle in the treaty that allows America to buy Rupert's Land at a discout price. Trading Qubec for swamp-filled Florida or tiny Bahamas is a fool's bargain.

2) and 4) are idiotic choices, they give America nothing that they hadn't IOTL.
 
Last edited:

MacCaulay

Banned
1). Quebec is turned into the 14th State
2). They return quebec to the British in exchange for lessening their debts to Britain.
3). They trade Quebec for another piece of territory(Florida or maybe the Bahamas)
4). They give Quebec to France as a thank you gift for helping them win the Revolution


1) In my mind is the most likely option.
2) We've never been into land bargaining, especially on such a large level. It's been that way since the beginning. Once something's American, it's American.
3) I'll restate my thesis for #2.
4) We would never give France more of a reason to stick it's nose into North American affairs. Sure, they helped us, and sure, we appreciate it, but we've already got enough on our plate trying to pacify the Northwest (where there are British forts ON American soil at Michilimackinac, Detroit, etc.), there's no reason to invite another player back in. And the French probably wouldn't want it.

Thought in order to have that happen, you'd probably need to have a less-ham handed attempt at taking Quebec than what happened in OTL.

The Continental Army kind of blew it's wad at Ticonderoga (with good reason), and the offensives into Quebec were really kind of more hoping it would touch off an indigenous revolution. If they started off from the beginning knowing that there was know way that was going to happen, but still wanted to try anyway, then sent a larger force up, you might get it.

Where could that force have come from? The Patriots were already pretty much exhausting every man that was willing to grab a gun. The only place to turn probably would've been local militias that were allied to the Patriot cause. In my opinion, this probably would've meant a much larger role for Ethan Allan and the Green Mountain Boys.
 
Turning Quebec is the optimal choice (both long-term and in the eyes of the Patriots) but the Framers need to be good to appease the Quebecois when they write the Constitution (say allowing established Catholic Church in Quebec, language protection clausles) to make them stay in the USA.

But the Constitution allowed states to have established churches, and there was no comment on an official language.
 

General Zod

Banned
But the Constitution allowed states to have established churches, and there was no comment on an official language.

As a show of goodwill to Quebec, you can put clausles explictly ehshrining established churches, maybe under the screenwords of "state institutions" (as long as they don't break civil rights, of course), and both English and French as official languages (or allowing states to pick their choice, as long as one of them is English). I believe those should put to rest most fears the Quebecois may have of forced Anglicization under the American system in 1789.
 
But the Constitution allowed states to have established churches, and there was no comment on an official language.

Well also there is how Quebec is divided at the time we don't use county like American, we had local lords at the time
 

General Zod

Banned
What about the Western part of the continent what happen to them

If America keeps Quebec, Rupert's Land remains a private property of the British Hudson Bay Company. But it is now cut off from main strategic connection with the British Empire, except for the tenous cold-water sea route through Labrador and Hudson Bay. Persuading London to sell it to America should not be too difficult, if not immediately, later in 19th century when fur trade declines. Without Quebec and Ontario, the liveability and defensibility of a British North America in the West declines sharply, and it is very questionable that America would let it be established meekily, as its strength steadily increases during the next century. Same reasoning for Oregon.
 

General Zod

Banned
Well also there is how Quebec is divided at the time we don't use county like American, we had local lords at the time

You can chalk that under the mantle of protection for state rights and "state institutions". As long as local lords do not use their powers to trample the Bill of Rights, especially if discrimination is done against Anglo minorities or, god forbid, visitors from other states, everything should be fine.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Well also there is how Quebec is divided at the time we don't use county like American, we had local lords at the time

Remember that Louisiana doesn't have counties either. I'm kind of fuzzy on just how Massachusetts operates. It's a Commonwealth, anyway.
 
You can chalk that under the mantle of protection for state rights and "state institutions". As long as local lords do not use their powers to trample the Bill of Rights, especially if discrimination is done against Anglo minorities or, god forbid, visitors from other states, everything should be fine.

On the matters of long term wouldn't a 14th state Quebec affect how the whole slavery thing in the long term (mainly because of the number of free vs Slaves states)

While Northern Quebec (I think they might Call it the state of Canada since it was the name of the Province) it praticed slavery (though far differently that the south and on a lesser scale), however British rule didn't really give any real continuity to the instituion while it was ruled by the French and the society in itself very agricultural base. I for one would think it would swig toward Free without being really being known for being an anti-slavery bastion

Remember that Louisiana doesn't have counties either. I'm kind of fuzzy on just how Massachusetts operates. It's a Commonwealth, anyway.

Yes but IIRC the British allowed the Lords to retain ownership of their lands and severals rights over the people renting them that goes beyond simple land division
 
Why would Quebec leave when the Constitution comes into play?

As optimistic as it may be for the 'freedom of religion' stuff in the Constitution, remember that in the 1770s-80s Americans were vehemently anti-papal...even more so than the British in some respects. If they kept Quebec, they're probably not going to be able to convince the Canadians they've done a good enough heel-face turn that their culture is safe.

Beyond that, the local elite probably won't like the stronger centralization under the Constitution.

I said 'popular' because I've seen a topic and several posts dedicated to seeing Quebec split off during the adoption of the Constitution.
 

General Zod

Banned
As optimistic as it may be for the 'freedom of religion' stuff in the Constitution, remember that in the 1770s-80s Americans were vehemently anti-papal...even more so than the British in some respects.

Patriot/Framer leadership was highly interested in getting Quebec as part of their Great Experiment, it is to be expected that they exercise their rather considerable leeway to rein in anti-papal feelings. Much of that feelings (eg. about the backlash the Quebec Act got) was outrage about the Quebecois getting a perceived preferential right for colonization of the Ohio-Mississippi Valley.

American Quebecois could never have the foreseeable numbers or influence to dominate the other states through the federal government, the only way anti-papal radicals could rally a considerable popular following against them among the Protestant majority, that would scare the Quebecois away from the Constitution.

Respect for civil rights and state autonomy was deeply ingrained among WASP settlers, only a tiny bigot minority is going to argue against the right of Quebecois to make sensible use of their civil and state rights in a state where they are the overwhelming majority, or worse, in favor of denying equality to Catholic Americans. The only big problem would arise if the Quebecois try to abuse state rights to discriminate against Anglos and Protestants.

If they kept Quebec, they're probably not going to be able to convince the Canadians they've done a good enough heel-face turn that their culture is safe.

The original US Constitution, especially with explict guarantees I mentioned, gives an exceeding ample autonomy to national minorities that are majority in one or more states. I'm puzzled to see how the federal government's powers, in the original restrained pre-ACW interpretation, could be used to "oppress" their culture. This is centuries before mass media, so in the lack of purposeful assimilationist policies from the central goverment, the danger of spontaneous cultural assimilation is rather remote.

As I said, there are most likely going to be guarantees about church establishment and language, so it can't be Quebecois being forced to use English before federal courts or in interstate commerce. The Catholic Church is getting her establishment, and French newspapers are sacrosanct, as is French education.

Beyond that, the local elite probably won't like the stronger centralization under the Constitution.

So the Quebecois shall get Federalists and Anti-Federalists. That makes them no different from other agrarian WASP states.
 
Last edited:
The original US Constitution, especially with explict guarantees I mentioned, gives an exceeding ample autonomy to national minorities that are majority in one or more states. I'm puzzled to see how the federal government's powers, in the original restrained pre-ACW interpretation, could be used to "oppress" their culture. This is centuries before mass media, so in the lack of purposeful assimilationist policies from the central goverment, the danger of spontaneous cultural assimilation is rather remote.

Absolutely excellent points. The culture of Quebec is not entirely different that it could not easily be state.
 
As optimistic as it may be for the 'freedom of religion' stuff in the Constitution, remember that in the 1770s-80s Americans were vehemently anti-papal...even more so than the British in some respects.


So anti-papal, compared to Britain, that there were several Catholics at the convention.

Britain, meanwhile, didn't give Catholics the vote until the 1830s, IIRC.
 
In OTL Canada, including Quebec, was persuaded to join the revolution. The reason Lower Canada (ei Quebec) refused was because they feared Anglicization. They saw the Americans as the bigger threat to their culture. Britain was far away and allowed them to enjoy their freedoms (to a certain degree) an American based government was way too close for them to feel at ease. Another reason for their fear was that the colonies were staunchly anti Catholic. So I cannot see Quebec joining the Union at any point, much less if they are forced to join through a successful invasion. If this was the case Quebec would be in constant rebellion. Ultimately they would be suppressed and Anglicized or they would establish themselves as a separate republic.

Now for the sake of AH. Lets say that half way through the war or earlier Canada decides to join the revolution because the Americans due promise to respect their culture. What you would end up with would be with a new nation that is much more divided than the original USA. The writing of the constitution would have to consider many new factors particularly state religion and official language. Add this to the issues of slavery, and power in small vs. large states and what you get is a Union that would splitter much earlier than in OTL.

New England soon becomes fed up with the South, Upper and Lower Canada (now two states both French) are also fed up with the Union they secede successfully. Now they have to worry that the new Union does not splinter. Nevertheless it does and so we have three nations (and that is the optimist side).

Also we must consider do New Brunswick (Nova Scotia) and Newfoundland secede as well? And any POD prior to the Louisiana Purchase does not guarantee this territory to the US. Even in OTL the purchase only passed by a very small margin of votes. The same goes for the Mexican territory.

This would make a very interesting North American map.
 
Top