K I agree with you though that the man problem with trying to integrating Quebec into us the language and many other difference in fact it could lead to no constution do to them voting against in the conventions
WI American colonists took Quebec in the Revolutionary War
- Thread starter danteheadman
- Start date
The rebels have to win their war before they can think about a constitution.
Again: Let's assume that Arnold and Montgomery take Quebec City. They are now in possession of the two major cities in Canada, but they are not in a possession of a large army.
In fact, their army was already suffering from rapid attrition after taking Montreal, with many soldiers returning south as soon as their enlistments are up. Even if we handwave a reduced rate of attrition- a victorious army has a sudden burst in patriotism, yada yada- they still need to hold a large expanse of territory with very few soldiers, no control of the sea and an unreliable land route back at best.
There is also no indication that the local populace will rally to them- in fact, the cackhanded administration of Montreal indicates that the American invasion strengthened Loyalism in the province, even in the areas in which the rebels won!
So even assuming that the French enter the war early, I'm not convinced this is necessarily the path to a quick American victory, much less one where Canada is retained (or even just an allied Quebec.)
Yes, the British might sue for peace after the shock of losing the extra colonies. The Howe brothers were hardly devoted to the war.
But we must also consider a scenario in which the rebels find themselves over extended far too quickly. In our timeline, the Continental Congress struggled to pay, supply and motivate its armies, with limited resources having to be split between the armies in the north and south.
Now, we're adding yet another front, one badly in need of reinforcements and supplies. Worse, because this army will have the prestige of victory, it might well suck up resources that could be better spent on Washington's forces, for example. That is to say, Canada might potentially become an enormous sunk cost.
Again, that's not to say a successful invasion doesn't still lead to an American victory. But all the discussion about the constitutional settlement seems like putting the cart before the horse- it's perfectly possible that an overstretched rebellion ends with a smaller United States at the end of the war, not a larger one.
Again: Let's assume that Arnold and Montgomery take Quebec City. They are now in possession of the two major cities in Canada, but they are not in a possession of a large army.
In fact, their army was already suffering from rapid attrition after taking Montreal, with many soldiers returning south as soon as their enlistments are up. Even if we handwave a reduced rate of attrition- a victorious army has a sudden burst in patriotism, yada yada- they still need to hold a large expanse of territory with very few soldiers, no control of the sea and an unreliable land route back at best.
There is also no indication that the local populace will rally to them- in fact, the cackhanded administration of Montreal indicates that the American invasion strengthened Loyalism in the province, even in the areas in which the rebels won!
So even assuming that the French enter the war early, I'm not convinced this is necessarily the path to a quick American victory, much less one where Canada is retained (or even just an allied Quebec.)
Yes, the British might sue for peace after the shock of losing the extra colonies. The Howe brothers were hardly devoted to the war.
But we must also consider a scenario in which the rebels find themselves over extended far too quickly. In our timeline, the Continental Congress struggled to pay, supply and motivate its armies, with limited resources having to be split between the armies in the north and south.
Now, we're adding yet another front, one badly in need of reinforcements and supplies. Worse, because this army will have the prestige of victory, it might well suck up resources that could be better spent on Washington's forces, for example. That is to say, Canada might potentially become an enormous sunk cost.
Again, that's not to say a successful invasion doesn't still lead to an American victory. But all the discussion about the constitutional settlement seems like putting the cart before the horse- it's perfectly possible that an overstretched rebellion ends with a smaller United States at the end of the war, not a larger one.
Even if the Americans don't keep Quebec, its likely enough that they get OTL Ontario in the Treaty of Paris - which has some.massive butterflies, killing Canada as we know it, preventing many of the causes of the War of 1812, and all those loyalists go elsewhere - say, settling that troubling French speaking Quebec.
If they do keep it, oddly enough, I think the yanks have an easy time integrating it. For all the talks of failing to integrate a bunch of French speaking Catholics, Louisiana would have a word with you.
If they do keep it, oddly enough, I think the yanks have an easy time integrating it. For all the talks of failing to integrate a bunch of French speaking Catholics, Louisiana would have a word with you.
i agree with msot stuff but at the begginign they wer eloved by the local populs not netrual loved then the americans start to hang people
Well you haven't addressed why the Canadiens would become interested in staying with America, and this particular scenario peculiarly sets up further problems.
Montgomery pulled off a really good victory as is, and it would be neat if he had captured Carleton, but he left David Wooster in charge of Montreal and Wooster was a terrible administrator. Schuyler failed (and it was a far hope) to convince all the Iroquois to sit out the war, so when Wooster saw a minority of Iroquois helping the British, he treated all the Iroquois as enemies. The Iroquois were prominent trading partners with the Canadiens of Montreal, and so when you combine his overbearing administration of Montreal, and the harassment of their trade with the Iroquois then it is no surprise that the Americans gained very little traction among the Canadiens in Montreal. Despite this bullshit, the Canadiens contributed militiamen to the Patriot cause - which makes alt history very alluring at this point.
As an aside, even after the Americans were booted back into the wilderness of Upstate New York, most of the Iroquois sat out the Revolutionary War. Joseph Brandt, the partial ancestry Iroquois warleader, couldn't talk the Iroquois into joining the war. Which creates another interesting alt history perspective, but but but but (and I actually stuttered as I was thinking this part aloud) it's a Human issue of very great concern. Arguably the American concept of confederated states was greatly influenced by the example of the Iroquois. The Patriots launched the genocidal Sullivan Expedition as repayment for Joseph Brandt's warband. And it was genocide, with an explicit purpose of destroying the homes and food supply of the Iroquois as a whole at the onset of winter with the hope that it would make them suffer so severely they would be unable to engage in future warfare. Some of the Founding Fathers questioned how they were going to be viewed by the descendants for that Expedition, doubting its necessity, and worrying that whatever good would come out of the Revolution would be completely overshadowed by this sin.
The siege of Quebec City was really unpleasant, and when it was lifted the British treated the place pretty well. Carleton was a really good Administrator, and in my opinion he kept the Canadiens out of the war. When the British crushed the American liberation of Montreal, and reoccupied Montreal, conditions improved for the people there and they were treated better. I hope no one's eyes crossed while reading that sentence, but that is how screwed up the Canadian Campaign was.
If Montgomery takes Quebec City, Wooster will still make a mess of things in Montreal, and it is very likely a comparable administrator would make a mess of Quebec City. And even if the Patriots possessed Quebec City and Halifax, well the amount of soldiers the British sent over was definitely capable of taking these places. And if the Americans did much better after Satargoa, and launched a second campaign into Quebec, they would have a long and barely supported slog up through Canada. So the Americans would likely have to win these places in the peace talks.
I think there is a path for Quebec to become an independent state, and I think there is a path for Quebec to join the Articles of Confederation as a fully equal member. There is even a path for a super positive early American victory in the Revolution. Yes, there would be an Articles of Confederation, even if the Canadiens sent delegates there before it was ratified and they objected, there would still be an Articles of Confederation. The Canadiens would probably want Article 3 to include wording that would provide for a stronger protection of state religions, and a recognition of their language. The official language of the Continental Congress would probably be English, but there is no way free Canadiens would consent to having their culture changed when even the occupying British didn't do that. A clause requiring unanimous consent in the organization of commonly held territory would likely be important to the Canadiens as well. Going forward into the Constitutional era, the Canadiens would force the Constitution (or the heavily amended Articles of Confederation) to be much more biased towards state rights. There might even be an explicit clause about secession - no matter what you think about that issue, we can agree that a secession process is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
To determine the destination of the United Empire Loyalists you must address what happens to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. If they stay in America there is going to be a lot of rancor, and probably a civil war. I think there was a way to reincorporate them into American society by having them go to Canada as in OTL, but then incorporating Canada at a later point - but this is a different discussion.
There were Yankee settlers in what would become New Brunswick.
If Montgomery survives, he will be famous, but he will not overshadow Washington.
Last edited:
Lusitania
Donor
Ok you keep assuming that the Americans have unlimited resources as stated before by me and others the limited resources of the rebels would be hard pressed to support another front that the British could send ships with soldiers.
Also please do not compare the French of Louisiana and French of Quebec. Quebec had over 80,000 French and its French population would double by 1790. Plus a much weaker economically and military USA. So that is not even a correct analogy. For fear of as other discussed putting the cart before the horse a Quebec in the USA would alter its makeup and also change its composition. As discussed in other threads before (extensively) we might end up with a USA more along lines of articles of confederation (loose union) not a USA that exists today.
We have to think that if we change the scope of war by adding additional theatres of war something will change and not always for the best of the USA. Plus bringing Quebec into constitution adds different dynamics that could change the feel and look of the constitution.
...and God forbid Benedict Arnold takes Quebec City for the Patriot cause, he would probably set himself up like a Sultan on a throne with a harem of French Canadian women lounging at his feet.