I think you are overestimating how much faith people at the time would have over constitutional protections. We are speaking in hindsight of how long the American constitution has lasted. At the time, political systems changed regularly. The Canadiens would think of any promises as being equivalent to the Edict of Nantes.
What has to happen to keep Quebec in the United States for the long-term?
- Thread starter NAF
- Start date
Lusitania
Donor
That could be a problem. Would they not want federal government documents to be in both languages or we establishing that French a second class language?
Them they can easily walk off the union once the British are done, they owe nothing the southies anglos
I believe they're referring to French not having to be adopted by the rest of the states. As for federal documents, having them written in both English and French isn't exactly a very tall order -- a non-issue really. For matters of practicality, anglo dominated states would conduct their governance in English, and Quebec would conduct theirs in French. Any inter-state forums could be carried out with the help of an interpreter.
A good point, but I don't think the Canadiens will necessarily jump ship immediately. There's no reason they couldn't at least test the waters first to see what kind of deal the Americans will offer them in return for remaining part of the union. And, of course, if the Americans do treat the Canadiens poorly, then they can just walk. The early US was a rather fragile entity, and it's not as though they'd be in any position to keep Quebec from leaving if they were hellbent on doing so.
I honestly don't think the relationship between the Anglos and Canadiens would be as antagonistic as many here seem to assume. Any US founded with a French-speaking Catholic majority state from the get-go is going to be a radically different nation than the one we saw in OTL. The revolutionaries really wanted Canada IOTL, and in the scenario we've discussed here they've fought alongside the Canadiens as brothers-in-arms to free themselves from British rule. Given how conciliatory the founding fathers were in OTL, I truly do think they'd do everything in their power to make the relationship work.
Having Quebec Libre next to the U.S. is interesting. It sort of messes with the idea of Manifest Destiny insofar that Quebec is neither an appendage of an empire too large to tussle with (Canada) nor is it an indifferent at best mostly non-white more distant country to be consumed in parts (Mexico). Rather it's a sister republic that was birthed in the same event as the U.S., like a much smaller fraternal twin. Makes me wonder if it opens up the possibility of more independent republics getting formed.
Of course, Quebec being remote and the U.S.'s relative lack of desire to expand north probably keeps it secure, if somewhat isolated.
Of course, Quebec being remote and the U.S.'s relative lack of desire to expand north probably keeps it secure, if somewhat isolated.
This was the biggest quandary I had when writing this thread. I think the inherent problems of the Articles make it inevitable that a Constitution equivalent is adopted, but any such document would no doubt be very different with Quebec having a voice at TTLs Constitutional Convention. Quebec's greatest concern has always been to preserve its culture, language, and religion. So long as TTLs Constitution ensures that Quebec gets to maintain its unique institutions, then I don't see why they wouldn't ratify it. As I stated previously, the founding fathers were very willing to make numerous compromises to keep the early US from fragmenting, and as such, I don't think it would be very difficult to get them to agree to the majority of Quebec's wishes.
Would there be a section or subsection of the constitution dedicated to what rights Quebec has specifically, as a compromise for staying in the Union?
And would other states demand their own "special exemptions" as a result?
And would other states demand their own "special exemptions" as a result?
unprincipled peter
Donor
Three things need to happen, two of which have been touched upon:
First, and foremost, Quebec has to be part of USA, something it never was. So, you need a situation that leads to this POD.
Second, Quebec has to want to remain part of the US, which means it has to feel comfortable within it. Culture, and rights, will need protecting, and good expectations that this will remain the case indefinitely. They'll need to feel secure that they won't be swamped by the anglo 13.
Third, the anglo 13 has to want, or at least accept, Quebec will be equal to any other state.
Good luck with any one of those conditions, let alone all three.
I see one path having a chance: USA takes Quebec by force and forcibly overwhelms the desires of the French Quebec inhabitants, thereby eliminating the second condition. How, or when, the USA can achieve this feat of military might is a mystery to me. Maybe succeeding in the ARW invasion, placating the populace for the duration of the war, then reneging on promises post war when it becomes obvious harmonious union isn't likely, sending an army north to subjugate the populace. The subjugation could be done in stages.
First, and foremost, Quebec has to be part of USA, something it never was. So, you need a situation that leads to this POD.
Second, Quebec has to want to remain part of the US, which means it has to feel comfortable within it. Culture, and rights, will need protecting, and good expectations that this will remain the case indefinitely. They'll need to feel secure that they won't be swamped by the anglo 13.
Third, the anglo 13 has to want, or at least accept, Quebec will be equal to any other state.
Good luck with any one of those conditions, let alone all three.
I see one path having a chance: USA takes Quebec by force and forcibly overwhelms the desires of the French Quebec inhabitants, thereby eliminating the second condition. How, or when, the USA can achieve this feat of military might is a mystery to me. Maybe succeeding in the ARW invasion, placating the populace for the duration of the war, then reneging on promises post war when it becomes obvious harmonious union isn't likely, sending an army north to subjugate the populace. The subjugation could be done in stages.
Well as mentioned upthread, declaring the Quebec Act one of the "Intolerable Acts" was a huge wrong foot forward since the Canadien elite were almost immediately alienated from the Continental Congress even if they may have felt some slight good will towards them. Then we can say, with almost certainty, that there's very little chance of the Continentals improving on their performance towards the Canadiens if they march North. OTL a single winter made the Continentals so despised that not even Benjamin Franklin could paper over the damages - though that was probably also coupled with the deteriorating military situation.
You would probably need major special exemptions for Quebec, and places like Vermont would most likely expect them too. That may result in a far less centralized United States. I'm not sure if that would be something that's fixable within the frame of the eventual Constitution however vs the Articles of Confederation.
In which case, maybe there are "full states" and "associated states" (Or "union states" and "confederated states"), which indicate how integrated the state is into the union?
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
That you see this as the one possible path, with an intercultural negotiation (as in, you know, Switzerland) being impossible shows me your estimate of 18th century Anglo-Anglo American politics overestimates the strength of its Hobbesianism and blood-and-soil nationalism and *significantly* underestimates its laissez-faireism. Forcible occupation and assimilation is the most impossible of all. How will a young, penniless, tired country, that gets massacred in battle by Native American warriors at St. Clair's defeat man, motivate, and pay for an army of occupation in the St. Lawrence valley to suppress the Franco-Catholic populace and protect Anglo-Protestant settlers?
Was being in such an army an appealing job for men of that generation post 1781 or so? Would the taxpayers of the 13 colonies gladly levy taxes to support such an army? Foreign loans, subsidies? from France, non, Britain, no, Spain, no.
There's some good farmland in the St. Lawrence Valley for growing grain if you don't mind shoveling alot of snow and cold, long, dark, winters, but how attractive is it for a mass volkwanderung of Anglos when you're moving next door to pissed off Frenchies who know the land better and seem to have a penchant for arson, when there are easier and warmer frontier lands to move into? Anglo-Americans had no public education system to really drill into them its their duty to take bigger risks to populate Canada in Generalplan Nord. Most individuals and families, even in New England and New York, and certainly more southern colonies, will take paths of lesser resistance.
unprincipled peter
Donor
I don't really see it as likely at all. But I see it as more likely than Quebec voluntarily joining the USA, and the USA voluntarily giving the terms necessary to get them to join, at least as anything resembling an equal state within the framework of the general government and/or the union lasting. At best you see an autonomous region, virtually an independent country with a loose alliance. Even that might be too much of a bugaboo in the sense that it would encourage other states to want the same. But, I guess I'm looking at the situation within the framework of a USA resembling OTL. You could end up with a union of more or less independent states with a weak overall gov't - more a system of states than a United States. With that setup, Quebec might coexist.
If the British managed to do it why won't OTL Americans?
There are Anglos in Labrador, Acadia and Ontario too...
"Why would people move to the less hospitable Arizona or Alaska instead of staying in more favourable lands?"
I don't know but people did it anyway, so this argument is moot.
Except that some lands which are today solidly French speaking weren't properly settled at the time. Even if there will be no complete take-over of the the core Quebec region, the idea that there will or cannot be war over places like Acadia, Labrador and Northern Quebec seems unlikely,
Last edited:
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
A border conflict is completely possible, including preemption of areas like the York peninsula. All my comments were in reference to the impossibility of conquest/assimilation/Anglification of the core Quebec region, Montreal, Quebec, their immediate environs, and the lands between on both sides of the rivers.
The British didn't assimilate/Anglify core Quebec. They preempted its potential western expansion. In some scenarios, Anglo-Americans could do that too.
Sure, all my comments were written with core province of Quebec between Montreal and Quebec.
OTL Montreal became a majority British city for a couple decades in the mid 19th century already and places around the island have plenty of English speakers to this day.
Some scenarios? That would realistically happen in virtually all scenarios involving a complete retreat of the UK from North America, there is no way the US population wouldn't try to settle all areas they can get away with.
That region is geographically small and can be militarily conquered and held by an US state that always has the capability of cutting the entire region from the rest of the world(if they hold Acadia and Newfoundland especially)
Sure maybe we can envision a scenario where the US cuts off any part of Quebec it wants and leave the remaining as an effective colony, but that's still involves actual colonization happening.
Last edited: