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.