Why didn't Quebec join the American Revolution?

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.

Giving the numbers of the entire Louisiana purchase is moving the goalpost considerably. I am referring to the Basse Louisiane were the vast majority live. Taking this to account, that in 1803, is at least similar or greater population density to Francohone Canada in 1775.

This population of Catholics then explodes in Louisiana, especially in New Orleans with both nègre, mulâtre and créole as a consequence of the Haitian revolt and subsequent migrations from other sections of the Caribbean and catholic Europe. So it is not necessarily so easily dismissed. Further, from 1825-1921(at least) every single archbishop of the state and city was francophone and usually from Belgium or France. Why would Canada be treated differently than Louisiana? Which in addition, was far more different from the English than the Canadians with a racially diverse populace, slavery, plaçage, Spanish civil law, etc...
 
Quoting the Declaration of Independence:



-



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.



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.

I argue that Louisiana differed more culturally from that of the English colonies than that of Canada. However this is my opinion.

French was only suppressed post 1862. Prior to this, it was clearly preferred in terms of education in cities such as New Orleans. It was only in the 1920s, that the US fully forced an English language viewpoint into the rural areas of the state. Thus for nearly the entire XIX, there was no infringement upon the francophone or hispanophone peoples of the state. Though, there was discrimination against those speakers of Kreyol Louisiane, however, this was from the francophone populace itself, not the US.
 
Giving the numbers of the entire Louisiana purchase is moving the goalpost considerably. I am referring to the Basse Louisiane were the vast majority live. Taking this to account, that in 1803, is at least similar or greater population density to Francohone Canada in 1775.

This population of Catholics then explodes in Louisiana, especially in New Orleans with both nègre, mulâtre and créole as a consequence of the Haitian revolt and subsequent migrations from other sections of the Caribbean and catholic Europe. So it is not necessarily so easily dismissed. Further, from 1825-1921(at least) every single archbishop of the state and city was francophone and usually from Belgium or France. Why would Canada be treated differently than Louisiana? Which in addition, was far more different from the English than the Canadians with a racially diverse populace, slavery, plaçage, Spanish civil law, etc...

Two reasons, slave vs free territory, and the Francophone majority in Quebec, as well as the dominance of the seigneur class along the St. Lawrence. Even with Louisiana as a template the differences between the social fabric there and those in Quebec are staggering. While the plantation class is a known and accepted part of the United States, the seigneural class is not, and most likely they end up disenfranchised and bitter, which gives you counterrevolutionary forces who can ally themselves with the Church. Any movement to secularize Quebec would result in resistance and lead to a more difficult assimilation if not outright revolution.

There's the matter that while there might not be de-facto suppression of the French language, it would be de jure, which would leave the majority of the Francophone population at a disadvantage, and their immediate neighbors in New England have no reason to try and fix that. There could be attempts to disenfranchise people per language barriers to give the English population an advantage (as unlike in Louisiana the free French are more difficult to suppress or outnumber) and to try and neuter the Church. This is just guessing because of both pre-war prejudice and a most likely heavy handed attempt to prevent Quebec from falling under the sway of a foreign power (eg Britain or France) due to its location.

However, my point is that for all intents an purposes many in the United States would consider the French potential enemies and aliens simply because of their beliefs and language, which makes them open to foreign interference (from the Pope or the King of France) which would be seen as intolerable to the American body politic. The Louisiana French are not in the same league, since comparatively there are not enough of them, and they can be more easily assimilated due to their economic institutions being familiar and a point of control.
 
Two reasons, slave vs free territory, and the Francophone majority in Quebec, as well as the dominance of the seigneur class along the St. Lawrence. Even with Louisiana as a template the differences between the social fabric there and those in Quebec are staggering. While the plantation class is a known and accepted part of the United States, the seigneural class is not, and most likely they end up disenfranchised and bitter, which gives you counterrevolutionary forces who can ally themselves with the Church. Any movement to secularize Quebec would result in resistance and lead to a more difficult assimilation if not outright revolution.

There's the matter that while there might not be de-facto suppression of the French language, it would be de jure, which would leave the majority of the Francophone population at a disadvantage, and their immediate neighbors in New England have no reason to try and fix that. There could be attempts to disenfranchise people per language barriers to give the English population an advantage (as unlike in Louisiana the free French are more difficult to suppress or outnumber) and to try and neuter the Church. This is just guessing because of both pre-war prejudice and a most likely heavy handed attempt to prevent Quebec from falling under the sway of a foreign power (eg Britain or France) due to its location.

However, my point is that for all intents an purposes many in the United States would consider the French potential enemies and aliens simply because of their beliefs and language, which makes them open to foreign interference (from the Pope or the King of France) which would be seen as intolerable to the American body politic. The Louisiana French are not in the same league, since comparatively there are not enough of them, and they can be more easily assimilated due to their economic institutions being familiar and a point of control.

I see your point better now. It is very true that Louisiana did not have a system as you mention in Canada, so I concede to this. In this regard, Canada is certainly different and more worrisome perhaps.

Though I disagree to the concept that Louisiana is easier to integrate due to the size in question. Had it not been for major changes in the US that rapidly occurred in the 1850s and prior to the civil war, the immigrant community of New Orleans would continue to learn the French language in education. The US is formatted in such a way to allow certain customs to remain with state support or neglect. This is why French remained so prevalent in Louisiana prior to the civil war, the US could have conceivably inserted itself upon Louisiana and demanded this or that.
 

Lusitania

Donor
People seem to forget that when US bought Louisiana from France and it became a US territory and State its state constitution stated that English was the only official language of the state. Not at all discriminatory against the actual French speaking people there and very welcoming to them I say. That was 30 years after ARW so have a tough time believing too much had changed in the 30 years regardless of constitution and laws. French Canadians would of been religiously, culturally and linguistically oppressed and discriminated as part of US.
 
People seem to forget that when US bought Louisiana from France and it became a US territory and State its state constitution stated that English was the only official language of the state. Not at all discriminatory against the actual French speaking people there and very welcoming to them I say. That was 30 years after ARW so have a tough time believing too much had changed in the 30 years regardless of constitution and laws. French Canadians would of been religiously, culturally and linguistically oppressed and discriminated as part of US.

Was this document then different than the current? The current constitution of Louisiana today states that it does not have a policy regarding the language of its citizens "whether it be English, French or Spanish."

Further, there was no discrimination of the francophone or hispanophone population. In fact, Antoine Blanc, the archbishop of New Orleans 1835-1860, implored his Catholic populace to treat the English countrymen well...
 

Lusitania

Donor
Was this document then different than the current? The current constitution of Louisiana today states that it does not have a policy regarding the language of its citizens "whether it be English, French or Spanish."

Further, there was no discrimination of the francophone or hispanophone population. In fact, Antoine Blanc, the archbishop of New Orleans 1835-1860, implored his Catholic populace to treat the English countrymen well...

Sect. 15th. All laws that may be passed by the Legislature, and the public records of this State, and the judicial and legislative written proceedings of the same, shall be promulgated, preserved and conducted in the language in which the constitution of the United States is written.

No place for French only English was allowed. This is from the 1812 constitution
 
Sect. 15th. All laws that may be passed by the Legislature, and the public records of this State, and the judicial and legislative written proceedings of the same, shall be promulgated, preserved and conducted in the language in which the constitution of the United States is written.

No place for French only English was allowed. This is from the 1812 constitution

So this applies to government documents? Frankly, if this is considered discrimination, then it is nothing. In Egypt you receive government documents in a somewhat antiquated Arabic from that which you speak. That is not discrimination.

It is akin to claiming that Aramaic had no place in Neo-Assyria. Or that Aramaic was discriminated due to the usage of Akkadian as a government language.
 
I see your point better now. It is very true that Louisiana did not have a system as you mention in Canada, so I concede to this. In this regard, Canada is certainly different and more worrisome perhaps.

Though I disagree to the concept that Louisiana is easier to integrate due to the size in question. Had it not been for major changes in the US that rapidly occurred in the 1850s and prior to the civil war, the immigrant community of New Orleans would continue to learn the French language in education. The US is formatted in such a way to allow certain customs to remain with state support or neglect. This is why French remained so prevalent in Louisiana prior to the civil war, the US could have conceivably inserted itself upon Louisiana and demanded this or that.

It's possible that US might benign in regards to the language, but the Catholic Church was the education institution throughout Quebec in this period, and it might draw a very fine line between breaking or adhering to the First Amendment in that regard. However, its influence would definitely be too powerful for the Founding Fathers to ignore, and I can imagine they would make a "separation of Church and state" clause in the constitution specifically to address that (heck OTL Canada had to confront the question of religious schooling well into the 19th century) in order to quash the Church further entrenching itself.

However, I do think that the inclusion of the French would mean the Constitution probably includes clauses more specifically designed to curb the power of the Catholic Church and perhaps de-jure enshrine the English language as supreme. At least so far as to try and assimilate the French faster and prevent possible collusion with a foreign power through them. Even if the French joined the Revolution I have trouble seeing the Continental Congress trusting them 100%.
 

Lusitania

Donor
So this applies to government documents? Frankly, if this is considered discrimination, then it is nothing. In Egypt you receive government documents in a somewhat antiquated Arabic from that which you speak. That is not discrimination.

This was written at time that the state had a large french population and that all laws would be written in a foreign language to them. This is a clear indication to a person who’s first language was french they could not expect government procedures, laws and government services to be provided in their language.

To those that were not french it is not discrimination. To those of french descent it was and only existed to make sure English was the dominant language.

Let’s agree that we will not agree on this. So I will leave at that.

It was the same that happened in Quebec in Canada and it was only in the 2nd half of 20th century that french began receiving services, in their language. So it was not only limited to US. Difference was immigration slowly made the french in Louisiana a small portion of population.

Think of today you go to US government office and many services, information is available in the US unofficial 2nd language. But back then they were discriminated, treaties not honored and so forth but that is a story for another post.

We cannot look at actions that occurred over 200 years ago with today’s mentality but need to understand the thinking of people at that time. Be it discrimination, slavery or other attitudes.
 
This was written at time that the state had a large french population and that all laws would be written in a foreign language to them. This is a clear indication to a person who’s first language was french they could not expect government procedures, laws and government services to be provided in their language.

To those that were not french it is not discrimination. To those of french descent it was and only existed to make sure English was the dominant language.

Let’s agree that we will not agree on this. So I will leave at that.

It was the same that happened in Quebec in Canada and it was only in the 2nd half of 20th century that french began receiving services, in their language. So it was not only limited to US. Difference was immigration slowly made the french in Louisiana a small portion of population.

Think of today you go to US government office and many services, information is available in the US unofficial 2nd language. But back then they were discriminated, treaties not honored and so forth but that is a story for another post.

We cannot look at actions that occurred over 200 years ago with today’s mentality but need to understand the thinking of people at that time. Be it discrimination, slavery or other attitudes.

Yes we have greatly divergent opinions on this and of the history regarding why French declined (not from migration, migration is what kept it in power). Further I do have the time to discuss this, but it was good to discuss with you and @EnglishCanuck .
 

Lusitania

Donor
Yes we have greatly divergent opinions on this and of the history regarding why French declined (not from migration, migration is what kept it in power). Further I do have the time to discuss this, but it was good to discuss with you and @EnglishCanuck .


The last point on this is to not ask ourselves if the laws or attitudes were discriminatory but to ask those who were the object of these laws be they French, Catholics, minorities, aboriginal or immigrants if they suffered discrimination and if laws at time enforced that discrimination.
 
So we are studying The American War of Independence in class, and I can't figure out why Quebec didn't use the chaotic situation to assert it's own independence for GB. One of the reasons the Brits had put troops in North America was to control the French population to the north, and I can't imagine that the Quebecois were happy with British rule. So, why didn't they either join the colonists in rising up or at least take the opportunity afforded by English distraction to stage an uprising of their own?
Probably could have been convinced if the Iroquois had been ameliorated, if Carleton had been captured, and if the American occupation of Montreal wasn't brutish.

Especially once France got involved, why didn't they try to get Quebec back as part of their support for the patriots?
It didn't make money.

America in 1803 is very different from America in 1775, both demographically and ideologically, and even more different from French perceptions thereof.
Not significantly enough to matter. Sure there were some that hated Roman Catholics, even high placed ones like John Jay, but it wasn't as bad initially as it would later become.

That said, there absolutely was discrimination against Catholics on a national scale in the 19th Century (see, e.g. the Know Nothings).
America of the 1840s and 1850s very much was a different country demographically and ideologically.


The Constitution wasn't approved until 1789, after the U.S. WON the revolution. Freedom of Religion was enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
From what I understand, this was so the Federal Government would stay out of religion and most especially wouldn't interfere in State Governments' state religions. As it so happened, the state religion idea was falling out of favor at the same time.


I argue that Louisiana differed more culturally from that of the English colonies than that of Canada. However this is my opinion.
Even considering the impact of the Acadiens, I agree.


While the plantation class is a known and accepted part of the United States, the seigneural class is not, and most likely they end up disenfranchised and bitter, which gives you counterrevolutionary forces who can ally themselves with the Church.
This is not a matter that the Articles of Confederation would even interfere with.

Any movement to secularize Quebec would result in resistance and lead to a more difficult assimilation if not outright revolution.
Not even the Constitution would have done this until the 14th Amendment.


There's the matter that while there might not be de-facto suppression of the French language, it would be de jure, which would leave the majority of the Francophone population at a disadvantage, and their immediate neighbors in New England have no reason to try and fix that. There could be attempts to disenfranchise people per language barriers to give the English population an advantage (as unlike in Louisiana the free French are more difficult to suppress or outnumber)
The language barrier to trade was present in original timeline. I think you would find many period politicians and traders conversant in a couple of languages.


However, my point is that for all intents an purposes many in the United States would consider the French potential enemies and aliens simply because of their beliefs and language, which makes them open to foreign interference (from the Pope or the King of France) which would be seen as intolerable to the American body politic.
Quebec would ally with the south to promote antifederalism, Quebec would strongly back the Bill of Rights, and Quebec would strongly support Washington's and Knox's plans for developing the American tribes.


People seem to forget that when US bought Louisiana from France and it became a US territory and State its state constitution stated that English was the only official language of the state.
There was almost a decade of Louisiana being a territory, and experiencing English settlement before it became a State. Quebec would have entered into the union as a state and not as a territory. They were already accustomed to having English overlordship, having to conduct legal matters in the English language when outside of Quebec would not have been onerous. The Germans got along with the English language fine, and so to would the Canadiens.


French Canadians would of been religiously, culturally and linguistically oppressed and discriminated as part of US.
The Articles of Confederation could not have supported this imagined oppression from the Congress.


the Catholic Church was the education institution throughout Quebec in this period, and it might draw a very fine line between breaking or adhering to the First Amendment in that regard.
The First Amendment only applied to the Congress until the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. In addition, from what I understand, the First Amendment's religious statement was specifically made so that the Federal Government could not interfere with a State's state religion. None of which would have mattered under the Articles of Confederation.

However, its influence would definitely be too powerful for the Founding Fathers to ignore, and I can imagine they would make a "separation of Church and state" clause in the constitution specifically to address that
The Constitution already was too invasive for many, and it would not have been ratified if it meddled further in internal state affairs.

(heck OTL Canada had to confront the question of religious schooling well into the 19th century) in order to quash the Church further entrenching itself.
As it should be because this is an internal state issue.


However, I do think that the inclusion of the French would mean the Constitution probably includes clauses more specifically designed to curb the power of the Catholic Church and perhaps de-jure enshrine the English language as supreme.
I doubt that as territories became states that they would come in as anything other than English republics. Perhaps if one area was extremely heavily settled by the Canadiens.
 
Not all Revolutionary leaders were openly anti-Catholic. George Washington asked his men not to celebrate Guy Fawke's Day in a letter dated November 5, 1775, on the grounds that they shouldn't be holding anti-papist festivities when they were marching on Quebec trying to get the people there to join them.
"As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for
the observance of the ridiculous and chidish custom of burning the
Efficgy of the pope – He cannot help expressing his surprise that
there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common
sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at the Huncture;
at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the
friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to
consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the
general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such
Cirumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not
to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offereng the most remote
insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren,
as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over
the common Enemy in Canada."[sic]
 
This was written at time that the state had a large french population and that all laws would be written in a foreign language to them. This is a clear indication to a person who’s first language was french they could not expect government procedures, laws and government services to be provided in their language.

I think you are misinterpreting that provision. The government of Louisiana functioned mostly in French for a few decades after statehood, and continued to be bilingual for some time after that. What that section did was ensure that there would be an English translation of everything passed by the legislature, to accommodate anglophones, but it does not necessarily follow that the use of French was prohibited.

It was not until the 20th century that Louisiana became completely anglophone and banned the use in French in schools and elsewhere.

It was the same that happened in Quebec in Canada and it was only in the 2nd half of 20th century that french began receiving services, in their language. So it was not only limited to US. Difference was immigration slowly made the french in Louisiana a small portion of population.

I think you mean outside of Québec? In Québec itself, government services were provided in both French and English. It was the private sector that discriminated against francophones. The government from the 1960s onward nationalized a lot of industries to prevent that, and passed language laws to obligate businesses to provide service in French.
 
If the Americans had taken Quebec City in 1775- it was a close thing - there were people like Michel Chartier, related to former Gouvernirs, who
"went to France and offered his services to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes who entrusted him with an unofficial mission as an observer. In 1776 he arrived in Massachusetts, but ignoring Vergenne's words immediately introduced himself to John Hancock as the unofficial envoy of the minister. He spent six months in Boston, and though a personal friend of Benjamin Franklin, he won few friends through his agitations."
With the Americans holding Quebec, who knows? People like Chartier might have convinced enough others to hold back and see what happens.
Interesting character- he already had had to give most of his holdings to his son, Michel-Eustache Alain Chartier, who fought for the British and was immediately captured by the Americans. Alain spent the rest of 1776 in rather comfortable captivity before being released- his daughter later married his captor's son.
 
Let us say Quebec does join the Revolution. The issue is keeping them afterwards. I have to wonderif they would be invited to the Continental Congress at any point, as I think Georgia wasn't invited to the first one as it was a penal colony. Might be there were just late in sending a person. How high is the French population in Quebec at this point? I am sure it is possible that they decide "alright, why not" and give up their claims to the Midwest like the New Yorkers, Virginians, and New Englanders did. Maybe they even get back the orphans of all those who died during the Acadian Explusions. I don't think the Americans are going to want the French(who I imagine will be called Canadians in this time period) in the union, though they might be wary in case Canada goes back to France, even if just if influence wise.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I think you are misinterpreting that provision. The government of Louisiana functioned mostly in French for a few decades after statehood, and continued to be bilingual for some time after that. What that section did was ensure that there would be an English translation of everything passed by the legislature, to accommodate anglophones, but it does not necessarily follow that the use of French was prohibited.

It was not until the 20th century that Louisiana became completely anglophone and banned the use in French in schools and elsewhere.



I think you mean outside of Québec? In Québec itself, government services were provided in both French and English. It was the private sector that discriminated against francophones. The government from the 1960s onward nationalized a lot of industries to prevent that, and passed language laws to obligate businesses to provide service in French.

While that might be an interpretation I look at it differently. The constitution should of been written in two languages and both languages given equal billing. Instead it stipulates English as only language of all documents. That was the start of the decline of the french language.

The whole premise of this thread was that Quebec join ARW. As many had identified the deep hostility towards Catholics by the 13 colonies made slot of French leaders hesitant and hostile to The British colonies.

While some have talked about the constitution guaranteeing religious freedom we have to realize that majority of real legislative power resides in the states and they all for most part did everything to discriminate and even persecute Catholics. So a catholic Quebec would of been ostricized by other states and they would not of found a welcoming place in the US.

I also think that other states would of done everything in their powers to stop Quebec from expanding to Ontario even after they had given up all claims to lands south of Great Lakes as would of been required by other states.

French language would of been even more suppressed in a US than in Canada. Independence would of been a folley for the US (19th century) would not of tolerated an independent Quebec on its doorstep. I say this for the fact they were only stopped invading Canada by fact of British power. A Quebec without European backing would be too tempting a target by many war hawks of the 19th century.
 
I agree that French would have been suppressed (in the long run) more under US rule. It makes sense that the Canadiens, for the most part, were not interested in the American Revolution.
 
Top