Didn't the British already give the colonists Florida in the peace accords but the Spanish had already invaded and screwed that pooch?
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
I'm kind of fuzzy on just how Massachusetts operates. It's a Commonwealth, anyway.
There were also elements in Revolutionary 13 colonies society that were open to allowing Quebec to have control over its territory if they were willing to become the 14th state. Especially with Thomas Jefferson being a francophile and with the French aiding the Americans to get their independence.Merchants in Boston were very anti-French and wanted the French shut out of American trade, or so I vaguely recollect from some Canadian history.
It depends on what the Revolutionary 13 colonists would do. Quebec in OTL did not join the Revolutionary cause, but neither did they really join the British cause because they distrusted the British almost as much as they distrusted the Revolutionary 13 colonists. I think many Quebecers saw the Quebec Act of 1774 as an attempt to buy their loyalty only until after the Revolutionary 13 colonists have been defeated and the colonies back in British control.Quebec would not join quietly, nor would it be treated nicely if conquered.
There were also elements in Revolutionary 13 colonies society that were open to allowing Quebec to have control over its territory if they were willing to become the 14th state. Especially with Thomas Jefferson being a francophile and with the French aiding the Americans to get their independence.
It depends on what the Revolutionary 13 colonists would do. Quebec in OTL did not join the Revolutionary cause, but neither did they really join the British cause because they distrusted the British almost as much as they distrusted the Revolutionary 13 colonists. I think many Quebecers saw the Quebec Act of 1774 as an attempt to buy their loyalty only until after the Revolutionary 13 colonists have been defeated and the colonies back in British control.
After the 13 colonists had invaded Montreal and captured it, it is possible that if they had issued a proclamation stating EXPLICITLY that the French culture along with the Catholic society would be respected if the residents would join the Revoultionary cause, then I think Quebec would have joined them and become the 14th state.
The question on whether, the 13 colonists, after winning independence, would have honoured their agreement to have Quebecers control their territory after becoming the 14th state is difficult to answer. I think they would not have honoured it and, hence, would have taken measures to anglicize and de-catholocize Quebec. In OTL, Quebec was able to resist British attempts to anglicize them in the 19 century and 20th century because Britain was fighting American expansionism in North America so they often needed Quebec's loyalty and help. However, if Quebec had joined the US as the 14th state and if Britain had been booted out of the contiment, then there would have been nothing to keep the Americans in check in anglicizing Quebec the same way that the Americans kept the British in check in OTL.
I have to say in passing that, contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Chuch did not have a powerful influence on the minds of Quebecers at the time. Throughout the late 18th and 19th century, the Church was fighting the Quebec bourgeoisie for control of Quebec minds. The Church won the struggle during the late 19th century and continued to be powerful until the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s in which Quebecers rejected the power and influence of the Church.
An independent Quebec would be fun!!
Unfortunately, they were in a very small minority. Most colonists would've probably preferred to burn the "papists" on the stake.
If this were true, one wonders how they ever managed to wrote that stuff about "freedom of religion" in the Constitution, which, amazingly, did apply to Catholics in full. Where were the discrimination and persecutions of American Catholics in the 13 colonies during this time frame, by the way ? These rabid anti-Papist crowds are very funny, always ready to stage lynchings against Canadiens and incredibly lazy about taking action against Virginia or Georgia Catholics.
Really? Who? I'm curious...papal minds want to know![]()
If that was true, then they would have joined the British cause against the 13 colonists. Instead they stayed at the sidelines and watched the two Anglo-Protestant factions duke it out among themselves. So, they likely distrusted the British as much as the Revolutionary 13 colonists. Future events would prove that they were right to distrust the British intentions behind the Quebec Act of 1774.Honestly, I don't think that they saw it as buying loyalty, but more like "finally! at last! the British have finally recognized the 'French fact' and have decided to act on it".
The British supported them and granted them a free hand in exchange for their loyalty. In return, the Church had to convince the Canadiens to support the British. The Church would spend the most of the 19th century fighting the Quebec bourgeoisie, who were either pro-American or pro-independent, for control of Quebec minds. A battle that Church won in the late 19th century until the 1960s.How else could the Catholic Church have been pro-British during the time from 1775-1815 and thereafter?
You are right. However, care must be taken to distinguish the term today and the term in the 18th century. Back then, this referred to the French-speaking and catholic colonists that inhabited the territory formerly called New France and not the nation-state today.Oh, and the proper term at this point is les Canadiens (or les Canadiennes if were referring to exclusivly females); the term Québécois(e) is a 1960s coining.
It did not really have that much influence until the late 19th century. The Quebec bourgeoisie had a lot of influence early on and in elections, frequently had a lot of their candidates elected to the concernation of the Church and the British who frequently gerrymandered elections or even refused these candidates a voice in Parliament.True, but part of it was due to the influence of the Church.
If that was true, then they would have joined the British cause against the 13 colonists. Instead they stayed at the sidelines and watched the two Anglo-Protestant factions duke it out among themselves.
So, they likely distrusted the British as much as the Revolutionary 13 colonists. Future events would prove that they were right to distrust the British intentions behind the Quebec Act of 1774.
The British supported them and granted them a free hand in exchange for their loyalty. In return, the Church had to convince the Canadiens to support the British. The Church would spend the most of the 19th century fighting the Quebec bourgeoisie, who were either pro-American or pro-independent, for control of Quebec minds. A battle that Church won in the late 19th century until the 1960s.
You are right. However, care must be taken to distinguish the term today and the term in the 18th century. Back then, this referred to the French-speaking and catholic colonists that inhabited the territory formerly called New France and not the nation-state today.
It did not really have that much influence until the late 19th century. The Quebec bourgeoisie had a lot of influence early on and in elections, frequently had a lot of their candidates elected to the concernation of the Church and the British who frequently gerrymandered elections or even refused these candidates a voice in Parliament.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
http://www.andrewcusack.com/2007/03/03/the-men-who-saved-quebec/
Read the note on Ben Franklin's orders.
The British were the ones that enacted the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which called for the anglicization of the French colony, This was against the agreement with France that the British would allow the French colony to practice their religion. Then the British did an about-face and passed the Quebec Act of 1774 which just so happens to be around the time of the 13 colonies rebellion. This is too much to be a coincidende. The colonists saw through that as an atempt to buy their loyalty and hence, didn't support the British against the 13 colonists; they stayed neutral. They were proven right as the British later passed the Consitutional Act of 1791 and Act of Union of 1840 that rolled back the Quebec Act.Since British rule pre-1783 (and, to an extent, post-1783) was more or less a "hands-off" approach, boosted by the Quebec Act, 1774 (which by and large was welcomed by the Canadiens), it would be easy for the Canadiens to prefer British rule over the rule of people whom they saw not only as troublemakers and rabble-rousers, but also as anti-Catholic and anti-French
The bourgeoisie influence were immense; in almost every election in Lower Canada, before the Act of Union of 1840, the candidates of the bourgeoisie frequently won election against the candidates that the Church and the British supported. The British were so displeased that they tried gerrymandering or calling new elections after only a few days to get the candidates out and encourage the colonists to vote for their preferred candidates, which the colonists never did. Then there is the Rebellion of 1837-38 in which Quebec supported the cause of the rebels against the wishes of the Church.That bourgeoisie that you mentioned was only a small minority whose influence would only be seen in the towns, not the countryside. In the countryside, the Church's influence reigned supreme, even if some members tended to disobey some of the Church's rules.
1.)Possible. Though the large French pop. might disagree.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
There were also cultural differences and a long-standing commercial competition, not insignificant factors.