Why didn't Quebec join the American Revolution?

This is not a matter that the Articles of Confederation would even interfere with.

Not at first, but there's no guarantee it would not later, or that a law breaking their backs might not be passed.

Not even the Constitution would have done this until the 14th Amendment.

Not the Constitution as we know it no. That might not stop a more subtle suppression of the French language earlier on.

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.

Not unlikely.

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.

That would simply not happen with Quebec. By 1790 it had a population of 160,000 historically, and by 1775 even it was bigger population wise than at least three of the 13 colonies. It would have to be statehood on a similar basis or nothing, and most likely the Continental Congress would try and make it easier to open the territory up for the Anglo settlers by attempting to suppress portions of the French identity.

The Articles of Confederation could not have supported this imagined oppression from the Congress.

Perhaps not against English people. Remember, for all intents and purposes the French are seen as a different type of people, and could be considered tantamount to aliens subject to a foreign power or influence.


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.

The Constitution already was too invasive for many, and it would not have been ratified if it meddled further in internal state affairs.

As it should be because this is an internal state issue.

Again, this could be an exception for the French, and the French were aware of the possibility historically, which was why they declined to rebel (that and nearly a century of bad blood towards the colonists).

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.

Quebec was already that, and it remains so to this day. Historically the English speaking population of the Province of Canada didn't outnumber the French until the 1850s, and never did in what would become Quebec proper. This is why I say they might take "precautions" against French dominance early on.
 
Perhaps not against English people. Remember, for all intents and purposes the French are seen as a different type of people, and could be considered tantamount to aliens subject to a foreign power or influence.
Likely we end up with different legal systems as well, making it seem even more alien to the Anglos as their own lawyers wouldn't be eligible to work there without passing the bar.
 
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...

I think the key point that you and the others are not quite agreeing on is that Louisiana, unlike the 13 colonies, was admitted to the US as a territory, with organization into states to follow as it was settled and as those were broken off. With that in mind 1) the previously cited laws were not relevant and 2) they would not be relevant to state laws as the territory was organized.
 
Why Canada did not join Americans

The Americans were seen as occupiers instead of liberators.

One pod would be Montgomery capturing Quebec and not dying.

This would prevent David Wooster from being the top dog in Canada. Wooster was harsher in his policies towards the habitants. Monty would probably have been less harsh, more understanding.

So for Quebec to fall, a pod would be capturing Guy Carleton as he fled Montreal to Quebec after Ft St Jean was captured.

An earlier capture of St Jean by bypassing it and shutting down the St Lawrence to the Brita would aid in the capture of Carleton and the fall of Quebec.

The British still might counter attack in 1776, but by this time, Monty and a diplomatic mission by Franklin might have convinced Canada to join. At the very least, it might of led to a couple more Canadian Patriot regiments joining the cause.
 
Why Canada did not join Americans

The Americans were seen as occupiers instead of liberators.

One pod would be Montgomery capturing Quebec and not dying.

This would prevent David Wooster from being the top dog in Canada. Wooster was harsher in his policies towards the habitants. Monty would probably have been less harsh, more understanding.

So for Quebec to fall, a pod would be capturing Guy Carleton as he fled Montreal to Quebec after Ft St Jean was captured.

An earlier capture of St Jean by bypassing it and shutting down the St Lawrence to the Brita would aid in the capture of Carleton and the fall of Quebec.

The British still might counter attack in 1776, but by this time, Monty and a diplomatic mission by Franklin might have convinced Canada to join. At the very least, it might of led to a couple more Canadian Patriot regiments joining the cause.
I think Montgomery was one of the big losses of the Revolution. Just a hunch.
 
Why Canada did not join Americans

The Americans were seen as occupiers instead of liberators.

One pod would be Montgomery capturing Quebec and not dying.

This would prevent David Wooster from being the top dog in Canada. Wooster was harsher in his policies towards the habitants. Monty would probably have been less harsh, more understanding.

So for Quebec to fall, a pod would be capturing Guy Carleton as he fled Montreal to Quebec after Ft St Jean was captured.

An earlier capture of St Jean by bypassing it and shutting down the St Lawrence to the Brita would aid in the capture of Carleton and the fall of Quebec.

The British still might counter attack in 1776, but by this time, Monty and a diplomatic mission by Franklin might have convinced Canada to join. At the very least, it might of led to a couple more Canadian Patriot regiments joining the cause.

Capturing Quebec does not mean retaining Quebec. Especially given the extremely poor logistics of the insurgent army.

And anyway, capturing Quebec does not mean most french canadians and amerindians will be fooled to the point that they will join those whom they quite clearly perceive as their enemies. The british authorities were were a master for the French Canadians. But although they would have prefered other masters, they obviously did not want to have their enemies of the 13 colonies as masters. They knew they would have far less favorable terms under insurgent/US rule than under british rule.

And if some of them had ever had any doubt, the 1783 peace terms made their minds clear again : the province of Quebec, as established by the 1774 Quebec Act, lost all territories between the Great Lakes, Ohio and Mississippi, and thousand of french speakers were forced to evacuate the territory.
 
I agree that capture of Quebec City at the end of 1775, does not mean that the USA will keep it.

What I was pointing out was that the policies of Wooster who replaced Montgomery were harsher. Monty would have done more to secure the hearts and minds. A possible result that instead of two regiments from Canada, there might be three to four.

Also, I am unaware of any law or action by the USA or state to force out French settlers in the Ohio and Illinois regions during or after the ARW. The French settlers in Illinois actually helped Georege Rogers.Clark by loaning supies. They were not forced out, but they were never compensated for their efforts and wound up in poverty. The aid of the French settlers and clergy in the region was vital for the American capture and retention.
 
Capturing Quebec does not mean retaining Quebec. Especially given the extremely poor logistics of the insurgent army.

And anyway, capturing Quebec does not mean most french canadians and amerindians will be fooled to the point that they will join those whom they quite clearly perceive as their enemies. The british authorities were were a master for the French Canadians. But although they would have prefered other masters, they obviously did not want to have their enemies of the 13 colonies as masters. They knew they would have far less favorable terms under insurgent/US rule than under british rule.

And if some of them had ever had any doubt, the 1783 peace terms made their minds clear again : the province of Quebec, as established by the 1774 Quebec Act, lost all territories between the Great Lakes, Ohio and Mississippi, and thousand of french speakers were forced to evacuate the territory.
Capturing Quebec doesn't mean retaining it, but it does put the colonists in a much better position. Logistics for the British in a counter-invasion would be fairly lousy as well, and retaking the place would almost certainly come at the expense of other operations (e.g. the New York/Long Island campaign, which was devastating to the colonists OTL).

From a political perspective, if the US maintains control of part of Canada for an extended portion of the war, they likely will get at least some recruits and include them in the Continental Congress/Declaration of Independence (note that OTL the Articles of Confederation had a clause giving Canada automatic membership if they wanted it, and the Treaty of Alliance with France likewise recognized the US claim to Canada). That would make it politically much harder for the Treaty of Paris to give Canada back to Britain, and much more likely for the British to write the whole thing off as a bad job and give up all of North America (they're already giving up the more inhabited and English-speaking parts, after all).
 
The insurgents could not control New York during the ARW. So it will be much harder for them to control Quebec at such a distance since british logistics and ability to project power was far better than theirs.

And as I previously stated, a couple of thousands barely organized men militia is not going to retain control of 100.000 hostile locals.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Capturing Quebec doesn't mean retaining it, but it does put the colonists in a much better position. Logistics for the British in a counter-invasion would be fairly lousy as well, and retaking the place would almost certainly come at the expense of other operations (e.g. the New York/Long Island campaign, which was devastating to the colonists OTL).

From a political perspective, if the US maintains control of part of Canada for an extended portion of the war, they likely will get at least some recruits and include them in the Continental Congress/Declaration of Independence (note that OTL the Articles of Confederation had a clause giving Canada automatic membership if they wanted it, and the Treaty of Alliance with France likewise recognized the US claim to Canada). That would make it politically much harder for the Treaty of Paris to give Canada back to Britain, and much more likely for the British to write the whole thing off as a bad job and give up all of North America (they're already giving up the more inhabited and English-speaking parts, after all).

Capturing Quebec just provided the continental army with an opportunity to be seen as occupiers and facing guerrilha war. They were not seen as liberators by french elite and the population but invaders.

As a Canadian no one says I wish we had joined and become part of US.
 
Capturing Quebec just provided the continental army with an opportunity to be seen as occupiers and facing guerrilha war. They were not seen as liberators by french elite and the population but invaders.

As a Canadian no one says I wish we had joined and become part of US.
Canadian attitudes today are not remotely the same as they were in 1776, though. The whole Canadian national identity largely didn't exist at the time, and what there was had no more attachment to the British than it did to the Americans (especially after the French allied with the US, which caused a lot of Metis and Native Americans to become much more receptive to American overtures).

The main French-Canadian response to the war was largely an indifferent "let the Anglos sort it out." There wouldn't be any serious guerrilla movement among the French, anymore than there had been against the British after the fall of Quebec in 1759, or to the Americans in Montreal in 1775. If the rebels seem likely to stay for any significant time, you'll have local opportunists, idealists, and people with a grudge against the British join up with them anyway.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Canadian attitudes today are not remotely the same as they were in 1776, though. The whole Canadian national identity largely didn't exist at the time, and what there was had no more attachment to the British than it did to the Americans (especially after the French allied with the US, which caused a lot of Metis and Native Americans to become much more receptive to American overtures).

The main French-Canadian response to the war was largely an indifferent "let the Anglos sort it out." There wouldn't be any serious guerrilla movement among the French, anymore than there had been against the British after the fall of Quebec in 1759, or to the Americans in Montreal in 1775. If the rebels seem likely to stay for any significant time, you'll have local opportunists, idealists, and people with a grudge against the British join up with them anyway.


It depends on the actions of the continent army. As I said if they came in a conqueror and acted against the population then it would of. But to come in and attack the British only no.
 
Canadian attitudes today are not remotely the same as they were in 1776, though. The whole Canadian national identity largely didn't exist at the time, and what there was had no more attachment to the British than it did to the Americans (especially after the French allied with the US, which caused a lot of Metis and Native Americans to become much more receptive to American overtures).

The main French-Canadian response to the war was largely an indifferent "let the Anglos sort it out." There wouldn't be any serious guerrilla movement among the French, anymore than there had been against the British after the fall of Quebec in 1759, or to the Americans in Montreal in 1775. If the rebels seem likely to stay for any significant time, you'll have local opportunists, idealists, and people with a grudge against the British join up with them anyway.
It's easy to be indifferent when there's no war on your home turf. With a more successful invasion, the indifference goes away.
 

Lusitania

Donor
It's easy to be indifferent when there's no war on your home turf. With a more successful invasion, the indifference goes away.

Correct and any successful liberation from England would require the support of the powerful Catholic Church and the french elite. I still do not think they could put it off with the prevailing hostile attitude of most people in 13 colonies and those in the continental army now in Quebec against both french and Catholics.
 

Kaze

Banned
Quebec sat there and looked and said - "We will sit this out, pass out the popcorn." The only change of course would be if something terrible happened - a British soldier rapes the wrong woman, a Quebecquis politician in contact with the French motherland hoping to re-establish French dominance receives marching orders from the royal court, or ASB.

Let us say they join, it is more likely they would want some differant articles in the Constitution - 1. freedom to speak any language the nations would speak 2. freedom of religion. 3. Monarchy. Of these three - the first two would be acceptable, but the last one would be the one that would doom their joining.
 
So, the seigneurs would lead the habitants in a widespread insurrection in favour of ...the British Crown? If the Americans took (possible) and held (less likely, but also possible) Quebec City, it is entirely possible that the British would wash their hands of British North America entirely. I doubt if Washington (among others) would suddenly reverse himself, give up on democracy, and impose Protestantism by force on this and only this part of the new Republic.
 
Top