What would happen if the United States won in Canada during the Revotionaty war?

Best/worst case, there is no Canada. If the Revolting colonies can gain enough to make the UK give up on north America entirely, then the USA is more than twice the size of OTL, the native Americans suffer even worse, and who knows what the cold war may bring.

OTOH, it isn't really likely that the colonists are going to be able to force the UK to give up on north America in it's entirety, and then the question becomes more, what (if any) territorial changes take place as a result of these victories. As the OP, we will defer to your take on what you have in mind, so please share a bit more details.:cool:

Butterflies, man! Butterflies!
 
To the Canadiens and their native allies, the British were an ocean away while the Americans were on their doorstep and eager for more land. Also, the British had successfully defused the situation with the Quebec Act of 1774, in which French civil law was restored in the colony.

There were some Canadiens who volunteered on the side of the United States, notably Jean-François Hamtramck. But most were uninterested in the conflict.


True, the British had offered enough concessions to make them more palatable than the Americans, with whom they'd fought for decades.

However, many of these concessions were pulled after the American Revolutionary War and the French might have regretted that decision later.

The best option for the USA at this time was to agree that Quebec would be independent after the war, they would not have agreed to join the US. I'm not sure if Quebec would prefer independence or returning to France, though.

Any opinions on that?

The US could never have sent enough of a force to defend Quebec city from the British reinforcements sent in 1776 (this assuming that Montgomery/Arnold could take Quebec in an ATL). It would have required the determined support of the majority of Canadiens to deflect any British invasion. 10,000 Canadien militia plus 2000 or so Americans might have stood a chance against Carlton's forces in 1776 akin to the Quebec campaign of 1759.

I have a few timelines where Hanover fell in the 7 Years war and Great Britain lost access to all those Hessian/Brunswick mercenaries that made up half of the 40,000 man "British Army" in 1776.

If they lost access to those Mercenaries, the British may have concetrated all forces on New York and Quebec would/could determine their own fate (British, French, American or Independent).
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I have a few timelines where Hanover fell in the 7 Years war and Great Britain lost access to all those Hessian/Brunswick mercenaries that made up half of the 40,000 man "British Army" in 1776.

I suspect that the British Army's size was money-limited more than limited by the manpower available, so without the Hessians (which were an efficient route since they were already trained) they'd recruit troops up to the number they could afford.
 
I think people underestimate how accommodating the US would have been towards Quebec. Remember that within the next few decades, the US would give statehood to Louisiana, whose population was largely Catholic and was mostly French-speaking until after the Civil War. Under the Articles of Confederation and the pre-14th Amendment US Constitution, there would have been no bar to Quebec having the Catholic Church as an established church. And while there was anti-Catholic sentiment, it was nowhere near as strong in the late 1700s as it would be in the mid-1800s, when nativism was stoked by Irish immigration.

As it was, the Articles of Confederation pre-approved Quebec (or, rather, "Canada") for membership - it could unilaterally join.

Obviously this is a different matter than whether it could have been held militarily. But still.
 
First- It isn't Canada, it's the Province of Quebec. Canada doesn't exist, and in this ATL Canada WON'T exist because Canada was created as a result of English loyalists coming to what in OTL becomes Upper Canada (Ontario). New Brunswick likewise was created to separate the loyalists from the English settlers already in the rest of Nova Scotia; this will still happen as in OTL because those areas and Newfoundland and Labrador will remain British.

Second- Hudson's Bay will remain British. Likely Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta are slower to develop but remain British. 49th parallel probably still becomes the border... if the USA still buys the Louisiana Territory from France, which it probably does.

Third- While the Articles of Confederacy do state Quebec can join the US unilaterally... why would they? And if they do... when the USA switches to a stronger Federal form of government, who says Quebec come along? Quebec is going to its own way one way or the other, either with the Treaty of Paris (the Jay Treaty/Treaty of London may be butterflied away) or with Quebec not going along with the new US Constitution. You have a new Quebec, but with places like OTL Upper Canada having more English speaking population, but not as many as in OTL because no Loyalist movement, you're going to see Upper Canada agreeing to remain with the USA as the 14th US State, though with smaller land area as Hudson's Bay still has northern and western OTL Ontario and Quebec will take more of northeastern Ontario when they split than in OTL.

Fourth- Vermont may very well go with Quebec when Quebec decides to go its own way, VT wasn't treated well (Because of NY and NH's disputes over land patents) and Congress wasn't admitting it. In OTL the Haldimand Affair was a plot by British Governor of Quebec offering VT to rejoin Britain. Haldimand is butterflied from being around, but Ethan Allen who was in support of it is still going to be in VT and a war hero; the USA makes a deal- Quebec can have a free hand to have VT (if VT votes to) and in return Upper Canada is allowed to stay. NY, NH, and MA might try to block it on security grounds, but having Ontario in the USA might be more beneficial to NY security than VT. Conditions, such as neutral Great Lakes and Lake Champlain with no fortifications or ships of war and free navigation of the St Lawrence can all be placed in a treaty of separation giving Quebec freedom. Guarentee of Most Favored Nation in trade status, obviously as well.
 
Another possibility I just thought of to add- instead of the Louisiana Purchase if the Hudson's Bay Company decides to sell their land (Rupert's Land) to the US to forestall any such Louisiana purchase or just because they aren't making much money having to administer; the Hudson's Bay Company will still OWN the land but be under the jurisdiction of US sovereignty. What will cause the US to want to buy it and the Hudson's Bay to sell? Inevitable US colonizing just like Daniel Boone going to St Louis while it was still Spanish, Sam Houston and hundreds of other to Texas under the Spanish and Mexican govts, Mormans to Utah under Mexico, Americans in California under Mexico, Americans in Oregon when it was nobody's. Americans go west not caring if the flag, Constitution, and govt goes with it or not. The government always played catch up. The same will happen here and the HBC won't be able to keep them out.

In 1869 the Hudson's Bay actually did offer the US that land for 10 million Canadian dollars. The USA said no, and it was given back to the UK who gave it to Canada. (interesting timeline if a POD that the USA said yes if anyone wants to do it!) So there is precedent for a sale. It would be more likely that the USA would say yes in a timeline that it has Ontario and Quebec is independent from the time of the Revolution.
 
True, the British had offered enough concessions to make them more palatable than the Americans, with whom they'd fought for decades.

However, many of these concessions were pulled after the American Revolutionary War and the French might have regretted that decision later.

The best option for the USA at this time was to agree that Quebec would be independent after the war, they would not have agreed to join the US. I'm not sure if Quebec would prefer independence or returning to France, though.

Any opinions on that?

I think they'd prefer French rule, if only because they had no experience in self-government at this time and their population was still quite small (around 90,000 in 1775).

First- It isn't Canada, it's the Province of Quebec. Canada doesn't exist, and in this ATL Canada WON'T exist because Canada was created as a result of English loyalists coming to what in OTL becomes Upper Canada (Ontario).

This is a bit pedantic. Canada was its name under French rule and the people continued to call themselves Canadiens thereafter. Prior to 1763, Quebec had referred only to the capital city.
 
I suspect that the British Army's size was money-limited more than limited by the manpower available, so without the Hessians (which were an efficient route since they were already trained) they'd recruit troops up to the number they could afford.

The whole military revolution that the British went through in the 18th century was flipping exactly that classical dichotomy on its head. The fiscal state built up in the late 17th/early 18th centuries allowed the Crown to dip its hands extremely deep into the country's pockets, borrowing sums so immense by the late 18th century that they could practically be treated as unlimited.

Meanwhile, conscription became increasingly difficult politically and recruitment became a function of, "How many people can we convince that this is worth it?" As a result of that, unpopular wars (like the American Revolt was prior to the French entry) were poor draws to the ranks. The British had immense difficulty recruiting people willing to serve in North America in the Home Islands, which is why they eventually turned to mercenaries.

Your supposition is very appropriate for the 17th century. In fact, one of the reasons the Thirty Years War was so devastating was because most of the participants simply could not afford to pay all the men they put under arms, leading to looting and 'living off the land' (read: looting more). This all changed with the 18th century British revolution in public finance.

Now, this isn't to say there weren't SOME limits on the ability of the British government to finance its military, I'm just saying that the old limits stopped applying and new ones had to be groped out. The old ways of borrowing were replaced with what were essentially modern concepts of funded public debt, the old ways of taxing were finally centralized into a modern fiscal administration (especially after the American Revolution), and by the time of Napoleon the British could essentially bankroll the entire European anti-French effort for a generation and never once even think of bankruptcy.
 
I think they'd prefer French rule, if only because they had no experience in self-government at this time and their population was still quite small (around 90,000 in 1775).



This is a bit pedantic. Canada was its name under French rule and the people continued to call themselves Canadiens thereafter. Prior to 1763, Quebec had referred only to the capital city.

It's not pedantic, it's called being historically accurate and it's ridiculous this is an AH forum and people don't know real history are talking about possible alternatives, so quit the insult. It's not Canada, the French don't own it, so it doesn't matter what THEY on the ground called it or the people called themselves. It was the Province of Quebec and Canada would not exist until after the US Revolution as a result of the influx of Loyalists. If you're talking about a political unit you need to use the de jure name, this isn't a geographical abstract concept, it's a legal place with (more or less) definitive boundaries.

And no Quebec was not just the city, it was one of three districts in the colony of Canada which was one of the colonies that made up New France, the Governor of the District of Quebec was also the Governor-General of ALL of New France (included Louisiana, Acadia, Newfoundland, etc). It is not unreasonable to assume without the Canada Act by the British that the name Quebec would stick and a new national identity apart from Canadien would exist and Canadien would just be an old fashioned cute nickname, like Gotham for New York.
 
Last edited:
Top