The Quebec Question

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.

Quebec would not join quietly, nor would it be treated nicely if conquered.
 
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 that case, prepare for armed Catholic "counter-"revolutionaries, from both the countryside and in the towns of Montréal and Québec City - including some pretty powerful Indian allies and some major defeats alng the way in the well-fortified area of Québec City (because the British built damn-good fortifications around that town). If the Americans think they can hold the advantage, they haven't seen how les Canadiens can react to non-British occupation - especially if the Catholic Church continues to be a pro-British as it was in OTL. There is no way that the Americans can successfully hold onto Lower Canada except via a military dictatorship that would inflame passions and make the Americans very unpopular, or by means of ASBs.

In the Paris peace talks, America now holds Quebec as a bartoring tool. Which of the following should they do? Which is most likely?

Hmm, let's see:

1). Quebec is turned into the 14th State

Not going to happen unless they give major concessions to Lower Canada that equal the Quebec Act. In future, Lower Canada will become very susceptible to secession and the US becomes more anti-Catholic than in OTL.

2). They return quebec to the British in exchange for lessening their debts to Britain.

Most likely.

3). They trade Quebec for another piece of territory(Florida or maybe the Bahamas)

Umm, I doubt that Florida might warm up to the Americans if that occured.

4). They give Quebec to France as a thank you gift for helping them win the Revolution

ASB.

There you go. If it borders on logic and reason, that's because that's the reality.
 
I'm kind of fuzzy on just how Massachusetts operates. It's a Commonwealth, anyway.

A Commonwealth in name only - it's just an average state, though the counties have no functions apart from the judiciary (where it is used to demarcate court districts and correctional services).
 
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.
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.

Quebec would not join quietly, nor would it be treated nicely if conquered.
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.
 
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.

Unfortunately, they were in a very small minority. Most colonists would've probably preferred to burn the "papists" on the stake.

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.

Or seen it as a means of safeguarding their rights, which the British were at least consistent in applying (including the retention of the seignueral system - the shape of modern Québec is due to the fact that the border was designed to include all seigneuries that existed at the time). Thus, this could be seen as a victory for la survivance. 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". How else could the Catholic Church have been pro-British during the time from 1775-1815 and thereafter?

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.

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.

Not so fast. I think a lot of them would treat them with a bit of suspicion, or that something was up. After all, everything south of the Montérégie and the Eastern Townships were almost always anti-French and anti-Catholic, among both the radicals and the loyalists. This is partly because, as someone correctly pointed out, the Americans were directly south of Lower Canada, and thus constituted a big threat - more so than the British. Hence why I'm thinking that the Canadiens would actively resist American control.

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.

True, but part of it was due to the influence of the Church.

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.

Also true, but that was partly true in the towns like Montréal. In the countryside, the Church reigned supreme.
 

General Zod

Banned
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.
 
Last edited:

Tellus

Banned
Im a bit amused everyone uses the name Quebec to refer to the whole territory in a 18th century context.

Quebec is the name of the main city in the colony, yes, but everyone in the territory at that time referred to it as Canada. There was no Lower and Upper distinction yet, and much less a French and English distinction, as over 95% of the inhabitants were French Catholics. The name "Canada", although it has indian roots, was first adopted and popularized by the French, far before the conquest.

The root of the confusion probably lies in the British attempt to take that away by calling the area the Province of Quebec, and signing the Act of Quebec. The nomenclature of these choices were purposeful attempts to diminish the colony. At the time, the Canadians would thus see that use of the name "Quebec" to refer to their entire territory in the same light as a Frenchman in 1941 would feel about being told he was a citizen of "Vichy". It implied that the colony had been so diminished that it amounted to little more than a city.

Things came back to normal after the US war of independence, and the French colonists were once more being called Canadians as they wished. With the rising English population in what is now Ontario, though, it became necessary to make a distinction between Lower and Upper Canada, which eventually joined to form Canada. By then, the "province of Quebec" existed again, but you wouldnt have found any of its inhabitants using the name Québec to refer to anything but the City of Québec yet.

Its only after Duplessis that rising french-canadian nationalism came to make the name "Canada" impopular and distinctly foreign in the name of those who adopted it and defended it first; the french-canadians wanted a new identity. All of sudden, Québec was no longer a city, but the embodiment on the nation. There was a distinct break in the 1950-60s with the idea that calling ourselves Canadians was a point of pride as founders of the nation. The nation was now Québec, and all hope of redeeming the name "Canada" was lost; it now belonged to the English, and we had ours.

Sorry for the long rant, Ive just seen the name of Québec in its 18th century sense misused one time too many :)

To get back on topic; Canadians didnt care much for the US - they were seen as "more of the British", for the most part. So it seems unlikely that there would have been popular sentiment in favor of joining the revolutionaries. In the strictest hindsight-buttered sense, though, with the important point of provincial control over natural ressources put aside, the rights granted by the US federation to its states were a much better deal than within the more-centralized Canadian "confederation" (a misnomer by 1783 standards, at the least). Quebec would have had most likely the ability to negociate its own provisions to ensure its cultural survival - after all, there is no official language in the US, and at least officially, there was never as much effort put in to assimilate minorities than there was in federal Canada.

In practice though, federal Canada stayed relatively at the centralization levels it had in 1869 - telecommunication issues aside - whereas the USA consistently strengthened its federal authority to the point where it seems ridiculous to see states clamoring for 10th amendment rights. But since Canada did not have access to this hindsight, its not impossible to think that given comparable circumstances, they wouldnt have found the US constitution much harder to swallow than the Canadian constitution.

Such a scenario would however put us in collision course with future centralization efforts - and thus firmly in the Confederate camp. :eek:
 
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.

There were also cultural differences and a long-standing commercial competition, not insignificant factors.
 
Really? Who? I'm curious...papal minds want to know :)

Thomas FitzSimmons, from Pennsylvania.

Daniel Carroll, from Maryland.

Since these were the two states with significant Catholic populations.

I grant you that it's possible that Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, etc. all suddenly become narrow minded bigots who hate Catholics.
 
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".
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.

How else could the Catholic Church have been pro-British during the time from 1775-1815 and thereafter?
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.


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.
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.

True, but part of it was due to the influence of the Church.
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.
 
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.

Because there were most likely other things that were on their minds. Remember, in Canada in OTL there's an old joke that there are two seasons in the year - July and winter. Even though April, 1775, would be seen as part of 'winter', it's technically the planting season - thus, if you were in the countryside, you'd be concentrating on that. If you lived in a town like Montréal or Trois-Rivières, then you would prefer to concentrate on your work and not get distracted by other things going on. 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 (even with France's support of the Continental Army - the Canadiens hated the French with a passion because the French "abandoned" them first by the deportation of the Acadians [the Grande Dérangement], followed a spectacular defeat at the Plains of Abraham, and then giving it away to the British in exchange for retaining sugar colonies), among other things. Were there exceptions? Probably - there are always exceptions in wartime - but, by and large, the Canadiens were pro-British. In order to do that, they need not had to actually fight alongside the British (for one thing, that would've split hairs among the Army), but by living their own normal lives - no doubt aided by a pro-British Catholic Church - which could easily change if the Americans mounted a successful invasion.

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.

More like because the British didn't necessarily interfere with the lives of most Canadiens, they were content with British rule. A successful American invasion, whilst ASB, would have been a highly unwelcome distraction for the Canadiens, and that would be enough to create massive trouble for the Americans, who would therefore either be forced to leave or force an oppressive rule on the Canadiens, which would have made things worse. Thus, they distrusted the Americans more than the British, since at least the British didn't try to interfere with the day-to-day lives of the Canadiens.

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.

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.

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.

True, but I generally prefer the term Canadien(ne) because the term Québécois(e) is specific to a certain place that only gained usage in the 1960s.

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.

Then what would be the explanation, for example, for the drive by the Church to inhabit peripheral areas of Lower Canada, such as the Abitibi in modern-day NW Québec, which people were willing to participate in?
 
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.

That would make sense. That's what Tex did in Ameriwank.

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.


Probably with the Rush-Bagot Treaty or its equivalent.

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

I figure the slaves would be freed here about the same time they were freed in the other northern states.
 
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 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.


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.
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.
 
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
1.)Possible. Though the large French pop. might disagree.
2.)El Zippo. Why would they give some territory to the people they just fought? That's like France giving West France or Africa to Germany.
3.)Possible. They may do that.
Sorry if any Canadians, French, or British found that ignorant.
4.)Maybe for thanks. But unlikely. We Americans are stubborn and proud!
 

General Zod

Banned
There were also cultural differences and a long-standing commercial competition, not insignificant factors.

You are right, but in order to show that they were far from insurmontable either, I'll retort that the early USA were easily able to accept the presence in their midst of a substantial French community in Louisiana, as well as a just as sizable German one in one of the 13 colonies (Pennsylvania IIRC) with very little fuss. As it concerns commercial competition, it was no worse than the one between New England and new York. With the addition of Quebec, the Canadian, New England and New York commercial groups are very likely to end up wavering berween petty regional bickering and making a larger common front vs. the agrarian interests, eventually the former ceding stage to the latter as sectional rivalries increase.

This point prods me to make some comments about the political placement of Canada in the American political landscape. As far as I know, at the time it was a mostly agrarian society dominated by the Church and the signeurs with some substantial commercial elites in Montreal and southern Quebec. IMO, once Canadians and the 13 colonies gets accustomed to their federal marriage, this should make Canada a mostly Democratic state with strong ties with the Southern agrarian elites (once they get accustomed to each other, Canadian seigneurs and Southern planters shall soon discover that they have many many interests and viewpoints in common). However, Canada also has a significant borgeusie urban element, which is only going to expand and grow in size and influence as integration with America propels economic and social development of the region. Moreover, American influence most likely shifts the tug of war between the urban elites and the Church for control of Quebec in favor of the former. Besides occasionally flaring commercial rivalries with NE and NY, these elites are natural allies of their American Northern counterparts, and the Federalists and later Whig and Republican parties. As they grow in economic and social influence, Canada shall gradually shift from being strongly pro-South and Democrat to being increasingly pro-North and pro-Federalist/Whig/Republican. Also the Canadian Catholic Church is likely to swing towards anti-slavery, albeit less radically than NE Protestants.

Therefore, Quebec shall most likely evolve during early 19th century from being a mostly pro-South swing state, to a true swing state, then a pro-North swing state, then a strongly pro-North state, however less radical than NE or NY. Eventually, it shall come to be a French-Catholic variant of the Mid West, and build its identity accordingly.

The fact that Canada shall reasonably quickly find a place in the American socio-political landscape shall put a powerful brake to regional separatism (they shall become the French-Catholic "cousins" of the South first, the more conservative ones of NE/NY second, eventually the half-siblings of the Mid West up to modern times) and ease their national integration (the presence of Lousiana shall have a similar effect as well). Therefore in the long term, a Quebec secession becomes more and more unplausible as they shift to become closer to and more nationally integrated with the North.

However, their presence shall have a significant effect on American politics, since they shall first significantly improve the fortunes of the South and the Democrats (even if they shall remain somewhat of a swing state towards the North and the Federalists). As decades roll on, however, they shall move more and more towards to the North, in parallel with the Midwest. This shall most likely mean a slightly early (say early-mid 1850s) secession (which the Confederacy shall lose just as badly, since the North has the additional resources of Canada), as the South feels like pushed to the wall earlier. Before turning to secession, however, the South shall try the option of agrarian imperialism even more forcefully: look to annexation of northern Mexico and Yucatan after the MAW, as well as attempts to buy or conquer Cuba and Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, in the 1840s-1850s. Possibly an earlier MAW, if Texas, Rio Grande, and Yucatan are swiftly given statehood as soon as they break away.

Lousiana Purchase shall happen on schedule or even earlier than that, as well as Rupert's Land Purchase at the first available occasion, since America shall be even more eager to deny colonial powers any significant toehold in North America, these geopolitical necessities shall always trump the constitutional scruples of Jeffersonian democrats.

Having Canada might either push the early USA to a slightly longer and stronger spell of pacifist isolationism, and so butterfly the Quasi-War and the War of 1812 away. Or it may give the young nation a strong appetite and more boldness for republican "Manifest Destiny" continental expansionism. The Quasi-War is the one less easy to butterfly away (since Canada is not involved). Therefore let's say it goes the second alternative, then a stronger, bolder USA expand it into a bid for conquest of the French Caribbean, which is most likely successful, as France is hard-pressed fighting wars in Europe. The USA end up with French Guiana and Martinique-Guadelope territories, Lousiana purchase is either part of the peace settlement (most likely) or happens soon thereafter, as France realizes it can hardly keep it against an aggressive America with the never-ending European Wars.

A potentially funny butterfly is that Haiti ends up in the hands of America, that shall struggle to decide what to make of it. The South would want to annex it and re-introduce slavery by force, the North would stubbornly oppose that but would be hesitant to give statehood to a revolutionary black republic (not that the South would ever hear of that). The South would also oppose making it an independent black republic (bad example). It shall be a thorn in sectional relations. Prediction: it becomes a territory and remains a widely controversial stalemated issue up to the ACW, then it gains statehood, or it is made a puppet state like Liberia, after the antislavery revolutionary leadership is crushed by force.

A big part of the war aim for the War of 1812 was Canada, so it could esily butterflied away, in such a case the Franco-American War takes its place in American culture. However, it may also easily happen if the UK drags its heels about selling Rupert's Land and America gets impatient, or the USA develop an appetite for conquering the British West Indies (sugar profits !), since British blockade and impressment are still around as casus belli for an emboldened America.

In such a case, Alt-War of 1812 most likely proceeds to an effective stalemate, since the USA shall get a bloody nose trying to conquer the BWI, and UK, war-weary and distracted by the Napolonic Wars and so fighting half-heartedly and with limited resources in this theater, shall get a bloody nose with attempts to land on the North AMerican mainland. Rupert's Land is a bit remote, given 1812 logistics, to be a major war theater, but most likely the British shall find effectively defending it even more difficult and onerous than the Americans staging any major offensives there.

The peace treaty re-establishes status quo (the end of the Napolonic Wars put an end to the blockade, and the British quietely stop impressment without ever admitting so as IOTL, or maybe explicitly admit to ban the practice in some face-saving way), except that Rupert's Land is either sold to the USA in the peace settlement or soon thereafter, as Britain realizes it is too difficult and onerous to defend against American expansion anyway. For the same reasons, they shall eventually agree to sell Oregon further down the line.

Apart from Haiti, another cool butterfly is that an USA made more and more eager and emboldened in its republican continental "Manifest Destiny" expansionism by conquest of Canada, victory in the FAW, and a favourable draw in the War of 1812, could easily decide to take the cause of revolution in the Latin-American Wars of Independence as its own and intervene in those wars with the aim to bring the star-spangled banner to the sister continent, and a Britain that was expelled from North America can could easily decide to reap some new colonies there as well.

Latin American Revolutionary leaders like Simon Bolivar could easily become pro-USA and see American statehood as desirable if America pours major support (money, weapons, logistical support, Yankee "volunteers") for their cause (eat that, £$%& Chavez !) and in such a case Grand Colombia and perhaps Peru-Bolivia as well could easily take the OTL route of Texas (the South, despite some racist misgivings, would not be nowhere as strongly opposed to statehood for Latin American states as it would be for free Haiti). All the same, Britain could stage its own intervention in southern South America and turn Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay into protectorates or puppet states.
 
Last edited:
Top