WI: The 1837 rebellions are successful

What would happen if Louis-Joseph Papineau and William Lyon Mackenzie
Had succeeded in their respective rebellions?

Could we have a republic of Canada today if they had won? And what would
The consequences be for Britain?
 
To be successful the rebels of 1837-38 would require either foreign intervention (sort of a double edged sword unfortunately) or substantially more popular support than they got at home in OTL. As it happened historically the rebels were down to recruiting foreign dupes to sustain the movement in 1838 before things petered out.

That being said, if the rebels had substantially more support on the ground and IF the managed to get the support of the US and IF they managed to take major settlements like York and Montreal then they just might be able to pull off a successful revolt via US intervention.

The knock on effects are hard to say, most likely Canada East becomes a puppet state of the US with de-facto independence while the whole of Canada West is absorbed into the US.

Britain smarts from the loss, but confederates her Atlantic colonies sometime in the 1850s most like and hangs on to her base at Halifax. Rupert's Land is sold for a pretty penny to the US at some point in the future while the fate of BC is somewhere up in the air.
 
"Hurrah, we gained freedom from English tyranny to become an American satellite at the peak of Know-Nothingism!"

Leaves a bit to be desired.
 
Just out of curiosity, but from what I read really quickly (don't know much on the topic) but were Papinau's problems stemming from his hardline approach which alienated many potential supporters? Considering the sheer scale of support that his party held in parliament, it definitely seems like he had the level of support necessary.

I don't know if the US would directly intervene on their side; they acted against Mackenzie's group OTL. Trade relations with Britain are more important than Canada was. Then again, if the Canadiens manage to succeed in the initial stages, supporters might be able to reconsider.
 
Just out of curiosity, but from what I read really quickly (don't know much on the topic) but were Papinau's problems stemming from his hardline approach which alienated many potential supporters? Considering the sheer scale of support that his party held in parliament, it definitely seems like he had the level of support necessary.

Papineau wasn't really the problem and was if any thing a moderate. It's mostly other Patriote leaders such as Nelson who really made it difficult to get wider support. He could be said to be a proto-communist whose ideas about equality freaked out the middle class, seignorial class and the clergy the last meant in turn that you had priest directly preaching against the uprising which, considering how catholic people were at the time, was a big deal.

The last point that a large part of the population had only a vague idea of the issues. They had lived under british rules for 70 years without too much problem on a personnal level and the lack of powers of the Assembly probably didn't seem like something that would impact them in any real fashion.

So what this mean is that you would need, in both canadas, a casus beli that is easier to understand for the common inhabitant as well as a manifesto that would manage not to alienate potential supporters.
 
If the US openly aids Canadian rebellions, and their success does not stop or butterfly away the South seceding in the US then might not Britain think its their turn to do the kicking?

The South may secede sooner seeing that more Northern territories means more "Free" not "Slave" States.
 
What would happen if Louis-Joseph Papineau and William Lyon Mackenzie
Had succeeded in their respective rebellions?

Could we have a republic of Canada today if they had won? And what would
The consequences be for Britain?


Some factions within the Patriotes and Reformists were openly talking of annexion into the US so that might be one option though not sure how that would go down with the population at large. Due to the larger concentration of people who had moved from down south in Upper Canada then in Lower Canada, I would say the former has more chances then the later.

Assuming an independent Republic of Canada based strictly on Lower Canada, it would be agrarian with money coming in from access to the great lakes. On one hand this means revenue but also a large amount of oversight from the US.

If somehow both Canadas decide to remain independent, either as a a loose confederation or fully separate, they might in turn be a bit more belligerent toward ruppert land and the maritimes and try to gain some territory.

Consequences for britain would more then likely mean uniting the maritime into a union with responsible government to prevent chances of a similar uprising at to coordinate defence against the US (and Canada should there be an independent one). A vancouver based country might also be possible in the west. Parts of Ruppert land with too low a population might sold to the US to prevent it being simply annexed.
 
If the US openly aids Canadian rebellions, and their success does not stop or butterfly away the South seceding in the US then might not Britain think its their turn to do the kicking?

The South may secede sooner seeing that more Northern territories means more "Free" not "Slave" States.

It is extremely doubtful that the US would openly support the rebels as this would mean war with the UK at a time when the later could bring its full wrath against it (unlike during the war of 1812) something which the US government would more then likely try to avoid.

At best, you might get "benevolent neutrality" where the US claims official neutrality but lets the rebels use its territory for recruitment and training as long as they are not too obvious about it.
 
Papineau wasn't really the problem and was if any thing a moderate. It's mostly other Patriote leaders such as Nelson who really made it difficult to get wider support. He could be said to be a proto-communist whose ideas about equality freaked out the middle class, seignorial class and the clergy the last meant in turn that you had priest directly preaching against the uprising which, considering how catholic people were at the time, was a big deal.

The last point that a large part of the population had only a vague idea of the issues. They had lived under british rules for 70 years without too much problem on a personnal level and the lack of powers of the Assembly probably didn't seem like something that would impact them in any real fashion.

So what this mean is that you would need, in both canadas, a casus beli that is easier to understand for the common inhabitant as well as a manifesto that would manage not to alienate potential supporters.

Was there really an issue that reached across the linguistic and religious lines which could unite the lower classes in each province though? I admit I struggle to think of one which would be capable of overcoming that divide, as the revolts in Canada East and Canada West were practically separate events for all intents and purposes.

At best, you might get "benevolent neutrality" where the US claims official neutrality but lets the rebels use its territory for recruitment and training as long as they are not too obvious about it.

To be fair, that was basically what the Patriotes and Hunters Lodges got historically. The US only cracked down on them after the attacks in 1838 had largely been carried out.
 
Was there really an issue that reached across the linguistic and religious lines which could unite the lower classes in each province though? I admit I struggle to think of one which would be capable of overcoming that divide, as the revolts in Canada East and Canada West were practically separate events for all intents and purposes.

Both Upper and Lower Canada (east/west came after 1841) had the same basic problem: The assembly being powerless to prevent the Governor from doing whatever it wanted. If you get him to increase taxes to cover some personal spending or to reimburse government money to make loans to friends (something), the lower classes would start to feel involved especially if their elected representatives are clearly powerless to do anything.

Another possibility along the same line is that the Russell Resolutions, instead of relieving the assembly of its power to vote the civil list to give it to the Governor propose instead to defer further the matter for consideration and instead authorize the governor to raise a special levy to cover the arrears of the provincial government. By putting things in limbo you give Patriotes & Reformists leaders more time to stew in their indignation and the population end up being charged twice for the same amount of services.

Lastly, an unwise but plausible move from the british could be simply to ban political parties from the assembly based on a strict interpretation that people represent ridding, not parties. Using that excuse, some politician could be barred from running by charging them with violation of electoral laws. While the real amount of power held by the assembly was small to begin with and their actual impact on society would see little change, it would be easy to make the politicians into martyrs and present the government as taking away the franchise altogether.

Something else that might inflame people would be things heating up in madawaska unlike the anti climax OTL. Militia have been used in the past during conflict but not usualy outside their own provinces, if you force people to go and fight at a distance meaning that their crops might go to waste, you've just pissed off a lot of people.

To be fair, that was basically what the Patriotes and Hunters Lodges got historically. The US only cracked down on them after the attacks in 1838 had largely been carried out.

They actually stopped some attempted incursions when they were aware of them. Not strict neutrality but the US government was still fairly serious about not getting dragged in. Imagine if on the other hand they chose to recognize the status of belligerent to the patriotes with weapon being sold openly to them as long as invasions weren't mounted openly from US territory.
 
So you think that America could've help the rebels if they kept it a secret. So if that works what do think is more likely a new independent republic or those territories joining America?
 
So you think that America could've help the rebels if they kept it a secret. So if that works what do think is more likely a new independent republic or those territories joining America?

As I said, not really help but more a question of turning a blind eye or treating them like a lawful belligerent. Any actual help would have been found out.

Upper Canada had a number of US natives in the ranks of the reformists so annexion to the US in a manner similar to Texas is a distinct possibility in the short to long run.

Lower Canada depends a lot on who exactly end up in control. If it is Papineau and other representing the seignorial class, they will probably want an independent republic that preserves their prerogatives.

If it is the more extremist under Nelson, their manifesto mention a number of views which would have been seen as extreme at the time so that, even if they decided to try and negotiate entry into the US, they may have been refused.
 
Assuming that the previous occurs, and Upper and Lower Canada manage to establish their own republics, wouldn't it be more complicated than just saying that one would eventually go to the US like Texas? If I recall correct, the majority of BNA at the time was Canadien; excluding the Maritimes, it was most definitely Canadien majority. It seems unlikely for an Ontario approaching OTL boundaries to be established considering population discrepancies.

Would it be more likely that there would be a single French-majority Canada, which then might try to sign an alternate version of the Webster-Ashburton treaty to hep delineate the border? I just don't see the two Canada being successful as one that is united, even fi the united one loses a few border areas that are heavily english speaking (Southern Ontario, perhaps?)

Considering US actions OTL, I don't think there will be much support until the Canadiens manage to win an outright victory. If that happens, there might be that good chance of a recognition of belligerence and quiet help, although I am getting Civil War role reversal feelings.
 
Assuming that the previous occurs, and Upper and Lower Canada manage to establish their own republics, wouldn't it be more complicated than just saying that one would eventually go to the US like Texas? If I recall correct, the majority of BNA at the time was Canadien; excluding the Maritimes, it was most definitely Canadien majority. It seems unlikely for an Ontario approaching OTL boundaries to be established considering population discrepancies.

Would it be more likely that there would be a single French-majority Canada, which then might try to sign an alternate version of the Webster-Ashburton treaty to hep delineate the border? I just don't see the two Canada being successful as one that is united, even fi the united one loses a few border areas that are heavily english speaking (Southern Ontario, perhaps?)

"Upper canada" and "lower canada" at the time were 2 completely separate colonies with the former being predominantly anglophone. It was actually the reason for its creation as Loyalists following the US revolution didn't want to have to live under anything but pure british rules. A french-majority Canada would imply Lower-canada annexing its neighbour more then liekly, violently.

To give an idea, Lower Canada in the mid 1830s had about 600k inhabitants with roughly 3/4 francophones while upper canada had 360k but less then 1/10 francophones. In other words, you would have 586k francophones trying to take over 474k anglophones and that's even assuming that everyone line up according to language.
 
Both Upper and Lower Canada (east/west came after 1841)

Yeah I know, I just have trouble keeping things straight in my head when I don't use the East/West divide :eek:

The assembly being powerless to prevent the Governor from doing whatever it wanted. If you get him to increase taxes to cover some personal spending or to reimburse government money to make loans to friends (something), the lower classes would start to feel involved especially if their elected representatives are clearly powerless to do anything.

Another possibility along the same line is that the Russell Resolutions, instead of relieving the assembly of its power to vote the civil list to give it to the Governor propose instead to defer further the matter for consideration and instead authorize the governor to raise a special levy to cover the arrears of the provincial government. By putting things in limbo you give Patriotes & Reformists leaders more time to stew in their indignation and the population end up being charged twice for the same amount of services.

Lastly, an unwise but plausible move from the british could be simply to ban political parties from the assembly based on a strict interpretation that people represent ridding, not parties. Using that excuse, some politician could be barred from running by charging them with violation of electoral laws. While the real amount of power held by the assembly was small to begin with and their actual impact on society would see little change, it would be easy to make the politicians into martyrs and present the government as taking away the franchise altogether.

Something else that might inflame people would be things heating up in madawaska unlike the anti climax OTL. Militia have been used in the past during conflict but not usualy outside their own provinces, if you force people to go and fight at a distance meaning that their crops might go to waste, you've just pissed off a lot of people.

Actually, those are great ideas for PODs. Allowing some more knock on effects would probably help push even the moderate Papineau and his followers into the arms of the more radical members of the Reform movement. Letting the rebellion simmer longer gives more support as grievances grow throughout the whole population.

I hadn't thought about it in those terms before. These are some great ideas! :)

They actually stopped some attempted incursions when they were aware of them. Not strict neutrality but the US government was still fairly serious about not getting dragged in. Imagine if on the other hand they chose to recognize the status of belligerent to the patriotes with weapon being sold openly to them as long as invasions weren't mounted openly from US territory.

Well TBH, the blind eye the US turned historically was probably far more beneficial. Lacking a base of operations inside British North America would hamper any effect selling weapons might have.
 
Top