Why didn't Quebec join the American Revolution?

Reminder that there is no such thing as Québécois identity at this time. They called themselves Canadiens or Habitants. The Québécois indentity is a development of the mid-20th century as Canadian identity developped post-World War I. Before that, the name Quebec as the name for the region was, for the most part, a British thing.

Independent French Canadas being called Quebec pre-1867 (or even before as late as 1931 I would argue) is a personal peeve od mine in AH.
 
I will say that it is possible for the Canadiens to rebel with a POD of 1763, if Britain was not forced to tolerate them by the Treaty of Paris (1763). Even then, the rebelling Canadiens would much rather create a kingdom entirely separate from the US rather than join the Anglophone republic.
 
The War in Iraq fundamentally transformed America IMHO. Its really important that Trump was anti war, and that Hillary lost the states with the most war dead. I think more than anything else, Trump's victory represents the thinning of American institutions, American parties (which were always paper thin things) have been totally hollowed out. Republican and Democrat are barely more unified politically than Occupy was, and it at least had General Assemblies to organize it's "membership".

Less remarked on is what this says about the political class. If a half bright fool like Trump can walk all over the best prospects in both parties what does that say about the competency of America’s “best and brightest.” He didn’t do this through some kind of Machiavellian maneuvering. Nor is the staff he surrounded himself with doing him many favors. This is how helpless the political class is. Trump is like a bull that wandered into a china shop and was able to break everything because we assumed the dishes were much stronger than they actually were. He dispatched the front runner in the Republican primary through a combination of name calling and suggesting that maybe the Iraq war wasn’t the best idea. He defeated the Democrats because they insisted on nominating an unpopular candidate that, even without real and imagined scandals, was an avatar for all of the opportunism and rightward drift of the Democratic party. Oh, and by the way she also supported the Iraq War.

The effects of the Iraq War on the politics of the United States is extremely under analyzed. The Iraq war was poorly thought out, poorly executed, and disastrous by virtually any rubric. It’s lead to a rolling crisis the scope of which is difficult to comprehend. It’s probably the worst foreign policy blunder in US history. It was also supported by the “Responsible Adults” in both parties and the media (perhaps explaining its lack of analysis). It would be weird if this did not result in some kind of crisis of confidence in the political elites.
https://communistleaguetampa.org/20...tional-presidents-and-dysfunctional-politics/
 
The War in Iraq fundamentally transformed America IMHO. Its really important that Trump was anti war, and that Hillary lost the states with the most war dead. I think more than anything else, Trump's victory represents the thinning of American institutions, American parties (which were always paper thin things) have been totally hollowed out. Republican and Democrat are barely more unified politically than Occupy was, and it at least had General Assemblies to organize it's "membership".


https://communistleaguetampa.org/20...tional-presidents-and-dysfunctional-politics/
Wrong place ?
 
Is it? I mean, the Quebec Act was one of the intolerable acts. Don't you agree that there's at least a slight conflit of interest here?
I don't think so. The problem with the Quebec Act in theeyes of Americans was not that it guaranteed Quebecois practices in what we'd call Quebec, but that it extended them to Ohio. On the other hand...

There were major religious issues. At the time the 13 colonies were pretty much uniformly hostile to Catholics, the French in Quebec were virtually all Catholic. The final treaty language that ceded Canada to Britain included considerable protections for the Catholic minority (something that did not sit well with many of the colonists who had fought as militia in the North American portion of the Seven Years War).

America's actual Catholics, before the Irish showed up, were treated fine. If you scroll through writings from the period, you can't really find anyone who is angry that the Catholic Church was preserved in Quebec. Although there was a great incident in 1775 where Washington asked his troops to stop burning the Pope in effigy.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't think so. The problem with the Quebec Act in theeyes of Americans was not that it guaranteed Quebecois practices in what we'd call Quebec, but that it extended them to Ohio. On the other hand...



America's actual Catholics, before the Irish showed up, were treated fine. If you scroll through writings from the period, you can't really find anyone who is angry that the Catholic Church was preserved in Quebec. Although there was a great incident in 1775 where Washington asked his troops to stop burning the Pope in effigy.
Well...

Maryland was originally founded as a home for Catholics. After the Glorious revolution the Catholics were suppressed, as was the case elsewhere in the colonies.

Catholics were literally illegal in New Hampshire (even after the Constitution passes, State Law remained on the books).

In 1741 John Ury was hanged for being a "Popish Priest (he wasn't, and the charges were mainly convenient) under a New York law that made being a Catholic priest punishable by death anywhere in the Colony.

In 1753 the Virginia Assembly passed a law that declared Roman Catholics incompetent to give testimony in court.

Several colonies had freedom of religion as part of the law, but specifically excluded "papists".
 
Well...

Maryland was originally founded as a home for Catholics. After the Glorious revolution the Catholics were suppressed, as was the case elsewhere in the colonies.

Catholics were literally illegal in New Hampshire (even after the Constitution passes, State Law remained on the books).

In 1741 John Ury was hanged for being a "Popish Priest (he wasn't, and the charges were mainly convenient) under a New York law that made being a Catholic priest punishable by death anywhere in the Colony.

In 1753 the Virginia Assembly passed a law that declared Roman Catholics incompetent to give testimony in court.

Several colonies had freedom of religion as part of the law, but specifically excluded "papists".

Why were these sentiments not extended to the wholly Catholic Louisiana? I believe you are underestimating the early Americans.
 
Why were these sentiments not extended to the wholly Catholic Louisiana? I believe you are underestimating the early Americans.
America in 1803 is very different from America in 1775, both demographically and ideologically, and even more different from French perceptions thereof. That said, there absolutely was discrimination against Catholics on a national scale in the 19th Century (see, e.g. the Know Nothings).

As to the original question:
  • There were cultural differences between the 13 Colonies and the French Canadians that made coordination different. People are slightly exaggerating them (several French Canadians did join the Continental Army when it invaded Canada), but they did exist
  • The Americans actually launched a major invasion of Canada in 1775. It failed, and the British kept sufficient garrisons in the area to prevent any second attempt. Those troops were also more than sufficient to discourage any would-be rebels
 
America in 1803 is very different from America in 1775, both demographically and ideologically, and even more different from French perceptions thereof. That said, there absolutely was discrimination against Catholics on a national scale in the 19th Century (see, e.g. the Know Nothings).

As to the original question:
  • There were cultural differences between the 13 Colonies and the French Canadians that made coordination different. People are slightly exaggerating them (several French Canadians did join the Continental Army when it invaded Canada), but they did exist
  • The Americans actually launched a major invasion of Canada in 1775. It failed, and the British kept sufficient garrisons in the area to prevent any second attempt. Those troops were also more than sufficient to discourage any would-be rebels

But did this discrimination seep into states? As in, local levels abd wats in which it could actually affect the strongholds of Catholicism in the US, such as Louisiana. From my study, there was none.
 
in pretty much every state, non catholics were in charge, or took charge, and then either actively discriminated/suppressed catholics or tolerated them. This includes Maryland,Louisiana, Indiana, and Illinois, as well as Florida. In all those areas, the Catholics were quickly outpopulated and relegated to a backseat role, if they were allowed any role at all.

In Quebec, the Catholics were allowed a large amount of autonomy/rights (which was a major sore spot for the rebels to the south), and while there was a sizable influx of non-Catholics, everyone's rights were enforced by the British Gov't. How long do you think it would be before the masses to the south pulled a texas (overwhelm the existing population and take over)? It's possible that Quebec would have been allowed to retain their rights and autonomy, but I wouldn't bet on it. It would be a couple of centuries before various christian denominations would join hands and sing kumbaya, so excuse me if I think some here are overselling the notion of religious harmony.

It changed a bit AFTER independence, but at the time of the revolution, all signs pointed toward domination.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why were these sentiments not extended to the wholly Catholic Louisiana? I believe you are underestimating the early Americans.
The Constitution wasn't approved until 1789, after the U.S. WON the revolution. Freedom of Religion was enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

During the Revolution New Orleans was under control of the Spanish Crown, as deeply Catholic a government as existed.
 
The Constitution wasn't approved until 1789, after the U.S. WON the revolution. Freedom of Religion was enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

During the Revolution New Orleans was under control of the Spanish Crown, as deeply Catholic a government as existed.

I understand this. However, why would this development change with the addition of francophone Canada? It would seem likely that freedom of religion would be even more defined than it already was. Would you not agree?
 
But did this discrimination seep into states? As in, local levels abd wats in which it could actually affect the strongholds of Catholicism in the US, such as Louisiana. From my study, there was none.
I don't know about what happened in Louisiana, but in New England discrimination against both French Canadian and the Acadians was rampant until quite recently actually
 
I don't know about what happened in Louisiana, but in New England discrimination against both French Canadian and the Acadians was rampant until quite recently actually

Well I on the opposite end, know of what occurred in Louisiana in regards to this issue. Though, I do not know of New England.
 
I understand this. However, why would this development change with the addition of francophone Canada? It would seem likely that freedom of religion would be even more defined than it already was. Would you not agree?

Much like equal voting rights technically existed for freedmen in the 1860s the presence of those laws on the books wouldn't actually stop anyone from abusing them or trying to disenfranchise people like priests and bishops. Anti-Catholicism was a big part of the New England pysche (Puritans and all that) until the turn of the 20th century (not to mention other places) and in the 1770s there was the bitter memory of the fighting with the French settlers from earlier in the century.

There was destined to be friction just because of how Canada (then Quebec) was settled originally with a French majority that will exist for a considerable time. The US isn't bound to respect either the French language or the de-facto power of the Church in the same way the British were, and the British had offered them a comparatively better deal. So the US would have tried to assimilate them, which wouldn't have gone as well as in Louisiana since of the 60,000 from OTL's purchase half of that population was slaves, with the remainder being white/creole. Quebec even in 1775 had some 90,000 inhabitants, majority French. In effect you will probably end up with numerous early attempts to neuter the power of the Church and smother the French language with an influx of English settlers. My gut tells me that with how resilient the French have been to assimilation OTL that this wouldn't work out and after a time the US would have to make some exceptions for Quebec.
 
Quoting the Declaration of Independence:

[...] For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

-

I understand this. However, why would this development change with the addition of francophone Canada? It would seem likely that freedom of religion would be even more defined than it already was. Would you not agree?

This isn't only about religion. Québec had a completly different culture, language, legal and economic systems. In a scenario where they get independece or join the Union they would eventually be vastly outnumbered by the Anglo Americans. the Canadiens surely didn't like the British, but the seigneurial elite had a reasonable guarantee of maintenance of the status quo.

Well I on the opposite end, know of what occurred in Louisiana in regards to this issue. Though, I do not know of New England.

Wasn't French language pretty much supressed from administrative use during American rule? Also, the créole élite did share a very specific economic interest with the rest of the American South.
 
To answer the OP though. The Canadiens of 1775 were not in a position to rebel. They were still tired from French-Indian Wars, they had just received substantial advantages from the Quebec Act, and they had a better economic deal with the British. To top that off the elites in Quebec, the Church and the landowners, were staunchly conservative and so more naturally sided with the Crown than American republican values, which rendered the Patriotic message nul (even more so since many Canadiens could not read or speak English in the countryside). Basically they had almost everything they could want under British rule, and independence/republic was a scary unknown with a potentially hostile neighbor to the South, and a very good chance the British would do what they did in 1759 by seizing control of the St. Lawrence.

In short, supremely little reason to revolt.
 
Top