WI – Independent Militantly Republican Quebec’s relations with a Constitutional Monarchy France?

The Northwest Territory being assigned to Canada was one of the intolerable acts. If Quebec/Canada got it at the peace table, that'd be a big issue between the two countries. In any conflict the Canadians would be beaten pretty easily and they would know that, so I imagine that there'd be some sort of sale or agreement.

It'd be pretty smart of the British to give Canada the Ohio Territory. It sets the stage for the two to bump heads and Britain to benefit.

If Quebec/Canada revolted, what's the status of Nova Scotia and Rupert's Land?

Working from bottom up here. Nova Scotia I would assume stays with the British (as would Newfoundland, PEI, and New Brunswick - which was part of Nova Scotia at the time); Rupert's Land, for now, would still be HBC territory. As I am assuming here that somehow Canada 'joins' the Americans but remains its own independent state in this case, the last thing a newly-independent Canada would want to do would be to cause problems to its new southern (or, rather, southwestern) neighbor, so handing off the Ohio Territory to Canada would be a no-no. Since the Northwest Territory (from the 1783 US POV) had multiple overlapping claims, Canada would have to give up its claims south of the Great Lakes - hence the adjustments I mentioned. The reason those boundaries were large to begin with was because in a fur-trading economy one needed to mark out one's jurisdiction (the same with the HBC and its trading posts), so the maximum boundaries were what would make the fur trade viable (as Canada's cash cow during this time). If one is thinking about defensible borders, that is not the problem here; the problem is basically keeping the fur trapping-based economy viable (even if it was already in decline in the easily accessible areas). If Canada can get a guarantee about fur trapping within the claimed area as part of it giving up those lands, either during the peace negotiations or after, then it would not be much of a problem. So, basically, we'd be starting off with these borders:
Province_of_Quebec_1774.gif

And just have Canada retain the lands north of Lake Superior and Huron in the northwest and the rest as per OTL (the southern borders approximating those of modern Ontario and Quebec). That would be for starters.

Now,
How significant was Michigan to the Canadians? How significant was Wisconsin? If the Canadians have or are expecting to have Rupert's Land, the relative value of Wisconsin vs Michigan changes. If they expect to have Rupert's land or western access, then good ports in Wisconsin and control of the Upper Peninsula are pretty important key, as will be keeping the Detroit River open (though that could be done by treaty, or a Nippising Canal could perhaps be built). A railroad west could go through the upper peninsula and Wisconsin through eastern Minnesota to Manitoba.

On the other hand, if the Canadiens don't expect to ever be getting Rupert's land, then Michigan would probably be much more important relatively-speaking since it'd be a kind of continuation of western settlement once you full up Upper Canada. The OTL Quebec-Windsor corridor could easily extend into Michigan.

For our purposes, I would not assume that Rupert's Land factors in at all. All that we would be concerned about as far as borders are concerned are only those that are the concern of the Quebec Act itself. Those would be negotiable. In that case, assume what you want. If Canada and/or the US wishes to expand into Rupert's Land, that would have to be by purchase/treaty, and then Canada and the US would divvy it among themselves. Regardless of the size of Canada's territory, there would be two things that would be of issue to the new government - settlement (and since the Great Lakes area and upper St. Lawrence is probably similar to what the habitants are used to in the already dense French-speaking heartland, well, . . .) and the French language. The latter would be contingent on Canada's maintenance of those privileges from the Quebec Act within its boundaries; the former would become a big problem since the days of New France. Canada would need to entice people willing to come across the Atlantic, and all while keeping Canada's indigenous nations on board (so new treaties would be needed between Quebec City and those nations so concerned, even if it means reactivating the Grande paix. While French speakers would be most welcome, the government cannot be too choosy and would have to basically take whoever decides to come. If it means Amish and Mennonite communities, for example, then so be it. So the English language would still play an important, if secondary, role in Canadian life ITTL as it does in OTL, though since it's Canadians running the show the outcomes may be different. It would also be awash with possibility. (From a linguistics POV, though, much interest would play in how French develops in Canada ITTL, and if a literary standard can develop based on local spoken norms.)

If we're talking a Republican Quebec following the Patriote Rebellion, then that's pretty different.

Yes, it would. For one thing, we're still talking about Lower Canada (Britain finally smarted up during this period and dropped using "Quebec" as an all-encompassing name for territory). Second off, much like the earlier scenario, we are still dealing with a unique type of French-Canadian nationalism during this period.
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/events/natpart2.htm
There is, however, one difference, and that is the world context at this time - in particular, what's going on in Europe at this time. IOTL this is the decade that brought forth the July Monarchy, the Greek War of Independence (and a failed one for the Poland), independence for Belgium, and general unrest throughout Europe at this time. All throughout the Continent you had desires for liberal reforms pop up and in conflict with a conservative status quo. Canada - both Upper and Lower - would be no different, influenced as it was also by events in the southern neighbor, and even more so in the case of Lower Canada for its own peculiar reasons. Success for an independent Lower Canada as a result of the Patriote rebellions would mean that its liberal norms would be enshrined in the institutional structures of the country, not to mention a triumph for the new professional class as well as what would happen when you combine repeating the American Revolution with some elements of the early French Revolution (not the stuff that came after, like the Reign of Terror or Napoleon, even if elements like the Napoleonic Code make it across in some form - IOTL the Code was used primarily as a framework upon which to organize and codify together all the preceding laws that applied from New France to the early years of modern Canada, including the old Coutume de Paris, creating the Civil Code of Lower Canada). The borders would be simple enough - as this was before the great migrations to New England and the Midwest, most French speakers would be located in Lower Canada itself, which would look different. Basically, it would be what we would now call the southern and central areas of modern Quebec - much smaller than the large boundaries of an earlier epoch.

This Quebec would probably just have neutral relations with France. They'd be friendly but I doubt speaking the same language would be the basis of some grand alliance. Quebec's social structure is pretty conservative here. Quebec is being treated as a more Yeoman-ish Latin American Country in this thread, which I guess makes sense. If there's a big difference between Quebec-France ties and LatAm-Spain ones it's that in the former Quebec didn't revolt against France (although they were abandoned by the French) whereas in the latter the countries achieved independence from Spain and thus were inclined towards hostility (plus Spain didn't recognize the independence until decades later). LatAm nations were friendly with Britain, whereas Quebec will have gotten independence from Britain. Quebec will be more weary of Britain than France.

As long as the Catholic Church isn't challenged too much, then the social structures of Lower Canada would be fine. The seigneurs, OTOH - and even then they would probably be cool with abolishing the system if it meant they would get compensation in return. Having said that, I would think the July Monarchy and a newly-independent Patriote Lower Canada would get along fine (if we are following OTL trajectories, France's brief Second Republic would be more problematic - the professional classes may be liberal, but even them liberalism in the 19th century does hit its limits at some point). I would also not look too much into OTL parallels with LatAm regarding Britain, because all throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries Britain was the dominant economic power in Latin America. So regardless of outcome, Lower Canada would have to deal with Britain anyway as much as it would the US, so a mutually beneficial deal for both sides would be necessary as a precondition for independence.

Also, given how the business/merchant class in Quebec OTL Anglo, do those folks stay in a post-independence Patriote Quebec or do they move to Upper Canada, the US, or some other place?

They'd stay, even if the Château Clique is broken up. Most of the business/merchant classes congregated in Montreal, which is located in too important of a strategic area before the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and just like how IOTL the Château Clique never really disappeared ITTL I would be certain that they would want to retain having a say in Lower Canada's affairs. Having said that, some may indeed leave, but I'm basing it on what we know of the Loyalists in the US. While a good portion left, most stayed and tried to make a new life for themselves in the US; the same would be true here in Canada, even with the nationalists' open-minded, tolerant nature (at that time). The professional classes need the merchants as much as the merchants need the professional classes (i.e. doctors, lawyers, civil-law notaries, etc.), even if a French-speaking merchant class did develop. Something would be done to make it all work out for the positive benefit of everyone.

What's the situation with Upper Canada? Even if they wanted to be British, they're too isolated from Britain to remain British. The overland connection west is too difficult, especially given how Hudson's Bay freezes in winter. It's probably a Republic or (more weirdly) an independent Kingdom either in personal union with the UK or with a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha on its throne. I'm not sure they'd want to join the US. Would they join up with Quebec as a grand Republic of Canada? If they don't want to be American than that would seem to be the wisest option. Working class anglos were part of the Patriote Movement in Canada IIRC, so it wouldn't be that weird. If Anglo-Canadians are part of Canada, then Quebec probably won't be as anti-British as it might otherwise be which thus would mean balancing between Britain and France in Foreign Policy. Of course, this Canada probably wouldn't be militantly Republican.

It would all be dependent on the negotiations between Lower Canada and Britain. Here, though, the situation is different - don't forget, Upper Canada also revolted, too, with similar grievances to its downriver counterpart; an independent Lower Canada would embolden Upper Canada to carry on with the Rebellion. Where it would lead? Even I don't know, because the possibilities are open, from forming a federal union with Lower Canada up to independence on its own or something more like a renegotiation of their relationship with the UK. In the former case, we'd basically get a Switzerland or Belgium like scenario, with Montreal as the glue that holds everyone together as the economic and cultural center (even more so a Switzerland-like situation if both halves are further divided into smaller regional federal units); in the middle case, then we'd get a scenario where, to misappropriate parallels from elsewhere, we have the US in a Russia-like role, Upper Canada in a Belarus/Ukraine-like role (though more certain of its identity), and Lower Canada in a Ukraine/Finland-like role, with a big difference in that Lower Canada also contains a separate language and culture different from the Anglophone world in North America.
 
Why would they move north when they could move west?

Québec (in its OTL borders) has nothing particular to attract American migrants. The soil is mediocre and the climate very cold.

OTOH, there was some Anglophone settlement in the Cantons de l'Est and the Gaspé - in the latter case further complicated by the presence of people from the Channel Islands who ran the local fishery industries.
 
OTOH, there was some Anglophone settlement in the Cantons de l'Est and the Gaspé - in the latter case further complicated by the presence of people from the Channel Islands who ran the local fishery industries.

Yes, but they didn't overwhelm the population the way the Americans did in Texas. They were always a minority of the total population. A lot ended up moving on to Ontario and further west.

Fur trade and logging?

The fur trade by nature requires a low human population. If a ton of people move to a place to hunt beavers, foxes, etc., those animal populations will collapse (and then the hunters will move on to a new region).

Logging could draw in some people, but there are lots of forests in eastern North America ; why Québec's forests in particular?

The big allure for the pioneers was land to farm on, and there were more fertile lands to the west.
 
Yes, but they didn't overwhelm the population the way the Americans did in Texas. They were always a minority of the total population. A lot ended up moving on to Ontario and further west.

Definitely; in the case of the Cantons de l'Est in particular, it was basically seen as an extension of New England (and, to a lesser extent, Upstate) so there was no need to overwhelm anyone. Instead, all they wanted was a separate area of their own since "those damn Papist frogs" (their POV at the time) refused to "assimilate" into the dominant culture - this at the same time that they baasically tried to replicate what is was like in pre-Revolutionary times in the Middle Colonies (i.e. Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey), which dovetailed well at first with British beliefs that the American Revolution was lost because the colonists were too powerful and thus tried to clip the wings of Upper Canada.
 
Top