AHC: Loyal New England, Rebel Canada

[zaffre]

Inspired by semi-recent musing on some of the parallels between New English & Canadian identity (points to @Dan1988) I've come to offer up a spin on an alt-Revolutionary War outcome that I don't think I've ever seen before, namely one where New England (!) is the one corner of the colonies to remain part of the UK, while Canada (namely the Province of Quebec, which has not yet been divided into Upper and Lower Canada) achieves independence. Canada's fate is often flipped in AH with the South but I think these alternatives - more "cousins" to OTL Canada or New England than wildly different - are possibly more interesting.

Q: Why not New England and Canada?

A: That would be arguably more plausible (I say "arguably" because yes, it is easier for the UK to hold on to both, but if they hold on to both they probably win the war) but end up being Decades of Darkness with extra steps - it's just MegaCanada and an America equivalent dominated by the slaveholding half. An associated Quebec ends up with a similar north-south balance but a whole new cultural divide layered on top.

Q: How does the UK even hold on to their most rebellious colonies while losing some of the most loyal?

A: Pretty damn easily, actually. You just need something like the Battle of Bunker Hill becoming an *actual* British victory instead of a Pyrrhic one. Gage's army escapes from their bottleneck in Boston, while Quebec City falls to a luckier Montgomery and - without the redirection of forces from New England - is never retaken. The Saratoga campaign becomes a push westward from Boston, etc. etc. and while this isn't the likeliest outcome, neither it is extremely contrived. Part of why New England was *so* rebellious and Canada *so* loyal is because the opposing side got pushed out early in the war - and it's useful to keep in mind that the Maritimes stay with the UK (and New England) since I can't see any world in which the road to Boston lies through Halifax.

Q: So what changes?

For starters, you have a reversal of the diasporas of OTL, with New Englander patriot leadership presumably hopping mad that they got sold out in the peace treaty, and Canadiens uneasy, to say the least, with the nation they are now a part of. New England remaining British actually probably does *a lot* to neuter anti-Catholic sentiment, but any sort of constitution drafting is going to be absolutely torturous - no Rhode Island, though.


So assume the coin lands on its side and we end up with two great regions - uncomfortable Canada and ungrateful New England - each arguably entitled to feel that they've gotten the worse of the deal.

Where do they go from there?

 

[Dan1988]

Lots to unpack here, but this bit jumped out at me (because of course it did):

but any sort of constitution drafting is going to be absolutely torturous (no Rhode Island, though)

That is probably easier done than said, but you'd need a POD where Massachusetts is a lot more relaxed in accepting a weird part of the region as its own. Seeing as how, in those days, religion could quite easily mix in with politics, one could probably play around with giving Unitarianism much more of a major impact than it did IOTL. The simplest, though, would be a Glorious Revolution-era POD, where Rhode Island gets pre-empted from having a Royal Charter of its own by having it argued that the Providence Plantations (the Town of Providence and surrounding area) and the Colony of Rhode Island (i.e. Aquidneck Island [Newport, Middletown, Portsmouth], and neighboring islands) were not properly constituted. Which would be fine and all, as long as some of the privileges we had gets woven into the new Massachusetts Royal Charter (primarily rights to the shore and - most uncomfortably to the Congregationalist leadership, but news to the English and their attempts to implant the C of E in the colony - freedom of conscience).

That would imply a lot of changes in the administrative makeup of the former area of Rhode Island going forward, as a lot of the towns that exist IOTL would not exist, and some towns that had extensions into what is now Rhode Island would continue to have it. I'm thinking specifically of:
*Seekonk, which may end up retaining what is now East Providence (the old town center) and Pawtucket east of the Blackstone River (or, IOW, the area I'm typing this in right now);
*and both Wrentham and Attleboro, which used to contain what is now Cumberland and Woonsocket, RI (and parts of Cumberland specifically in the case of Attleboro, along with North Attleboro[ugh]).
Also, Scituate, RI, would probably be renamed New Scituate (as the original colonizers/settlers were originally from Scituate, MA).

OTOH, considering how the leadership in Massachusetts tended to alternate between using Massachusetts and New England as names for the region (after all, it is the dominant polity in the region), incorporating Rhode Island into the Province of Massachusetts Bay, much like the integration of Plymouth Colony, would probably make a lot of sense.

 

[Nyvis]

Honestly my first reaction is: does Canada even stick with the continental congress? They're geographically cut off and have very little in common with a more southern US in the making. They may feel sympathetic to the free states stuck with it but probably not enough to stick with the project.

In fact even with Canada leaving, I could see the remaining northern states not wanting to be stuck into Virginia's orbit either.

I think a likely scenario is that worried northerners leave one by one until the congress is left with only the southern(ish) states, at which point it does manage to get agreement for a constitution. Which is probably a slaver's wet dream.

Meanwhile PA and NY are on their own, and honestly likely to grow enough to be pretty good by themselves as they become default targets for immigration, while looking to their west.


Meanwhile on the British side, New England is going to be an easy target for internal immigration early on, but also not able to expand as much as Canada. Its main weight is going to be a growing industry in Boston rather than a wealth of resources to discover. The urban concentration is likely to lead to a firmer political consciousness. And I can't see internal aspirations for some measure of self rule or representation fading entirely. Loyalists will want some measure of recognition for sticking with Britain.

 

[Charles EP M.]

@Nyvis has a good point, how long does Canada want to stick this out? Is this anything more to them than "if we stick together the British Empire can't come back"?

This might be better for the slavers too, if it's easier to go "this part is ours and that part is yours and as long as we keep apart this is fine & we don't care".

 

[Nyvis]

@Nyvis has a good point, how long does Canada want to stick this out? Is this anything more to them than "if we stick together the British Empire can't come back"?

This might be better for the slavers too, if it's easier to go "this part is ours and that part is yours and as long as we keep apart this is fine & we don't care".

They could also have a formal defensive alliance without sharing government structures? Some sort of agreement to defend any of the ex-British colonies from European aggression?

I expect a lot more feuding over the west between them though. Meanwhile New England is cut off.

 

[Charles EP M.]

They could also have a formal defensive alliance without sharing government structures? Some sort of agreement to defend any of the ex-British colonies from European aggression?

So more a Confederate States

 

[Nyvis]

So more a Confederate States

Probably not even that.

I could see the southern states forming a confederation because they'll want to handle policing duty (aka slave catching) in a coordinated fashion, but I doubt the remaining northern states or Canada will want to be involved in that. So it'd be a defensive agreement on top and separate of that, probably?

 

[Dan1988]

Meanwhile on the British side, New England is going to be an easy target for internal immigration early on, but also not able to expand as much as Canada.

It might do some expansion, though probably at the expense of New York and Canada if things go right.

Source: Karl Musser, Wikimedia Commons; <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masscolony.png>
No, not the land grant to the Plymouth Colony, just the one for the Massachusetts Bay Colony (with the merger of the Plymouth Colony into Massachusetts, that land grant became defunct). Which puts what we IOTL call Upstate NY, the Upper Midwest east of the Mississippi River, and Southwestern Ontario with the Golden Horseshoe within Beacon Hill's sights. Upstate was already starting to become a target for settlement by New Englanders, though the disputes over vague colonial boundaries added an element of uncertainty. Separating Canada from the rest of the rebelling colonies, though, might also have an impact of weakening ties between it and the Continental Congress - which would make much more sense for Canada, surviving as an independent Francophone-majority state instead of tethering itself to an Anglophone-majority US that may not necessarily respect local conditions.

Apart from that, yes I agree about the internal immigration - which would make sense for securing Massachusetts' frontier areas at the time (especially Maine).

Its main weight is going to be a growing industry in Boston rather than a wealth of resources to discover. The urban concentration is likely to lead to a firmer political consciousness.

That makes sense.

And I can't see internal aspirations for some measure of self rule or representation fading entirely. Loyalists will want some measure of recognition for sticking with Britain.

Certainly - though, if it was handled early on, then maybe some of it could be diffused. A Glorious Revolution POD could work, or even earlier in the Dominion if a deal was done to avoid some of the worst aspects of centralization (although by going that far, one would change the parameters of the AHC too much. So that means we'd have to focus on the time Massachusetts got converted into a Royal Province after the Glorious Revolution - although, during the Cromwellian period, that doesn't necessarily stop Parliament from rewarding those colonies loyal to it (thereby giving the New England colonies special treatment), should it choose to, which may help provide a precedent for the Glorious Revolution POD. In turn, that would help with rewarding the New England colonies as a whole (including NH and CT) for their loyalty, which in the case of Massachusetts could mean opening up some senior officials to either appointment by the provincial government (such as judges) or popular election (I'm thinking the lieutenant-governor).

And another thing - Nova Scotia may also be more strongly drawn into New England's orbit, so Loyalist New England would be a bit larger than the OTL region as it evolved.

 

[Nyvis]

It might do some expansion, though probably at the expense of New York and Canada if things go right.

If they get upstate New York and thus break into the west, it changes everything.

I wonder if the British could make that work using the fact they have better relations with the natives to bring them into a more isolated New York colony? I'm still tempted to say no. The rest of the colonies are likely to see that as a resumption of the revolutionary war, which isn't going to go well for the British as soon as something distracts them in another part of the world.

Certainly - though, if it was handled early on, then maybe some of it could be diffused. A Glorious Revolution POD could work, or even earlier in the Dominion if a deal was done to avoid some of the worst aspects of centralization (although by going that far, one would change the parameters of the AHC too much. So that means we'd have to focus on the time Massachusetts got converted into a Royal Province after the Glorious Revolution - although, during the Cromwellian period, that doesn't necessarily stop Parliament from rewarding those colonies loyal to it (thereby giving the New England colonies special treatment), should it choose to, which may help provide a precedent for the Glorious Revolution POD. In turn, that would help with rewarding the New England colonies as a whole (including NH and CT) for their loyalty, which in the case of Massachusetts could mean opening up some senior officials to either appointment by the provincial government (such as judges) or popular election (I'm thinking the lieutenant-governor).

And another thing - Nova Scotia may also be more strongly drawn into New England's orbit, so Loyalist New England would be a bit larger than the OTL region as it evolved.

One thing I'm wondering is how large we can get New England to be. There's potential for a more settled Maine, and Boston can always grow even more. On the other hand, British trade policy is likely to make New England less of a good destination for working class immigrants considering it won't be able to do any protectionism against the rest of the empire or have the rest of the US as an accessible market for industrial goods.

On the other hand, it can potentially leverage itself as the entry point for American goods into the British economy?

Actually that could be a good concession to give the colonial elites in Boston? Let them serve as a routing point for all British trade in north America? If so there's huge potential for the city. At some point someone may also cut middlemen and establish industries here to process raw resources from the continent, but they have to compete with the more established industries in the home country in the absence of tariffs.

I think if you figure out the economics of it, you'll have great data to draw the politics from.

 

[Dan1988]

One thing I'm wondering is how large we can get New England to be.

The first thing would be to resist the temptation of confusing Massachusetts with New England itself. Yes, there's a long tradition of that (and many will probably still do that), but that might get the other colonies a bit uneasy, much like how Scotland/Wales/N.I. has weird looks every time one confuses Britain and England together. Likewise, here.

With that in mind, assuming Rhode Island gets absorbed in Massachusetts, we can start off by assuming at least 4 colonies provide the makeup for New England, all except one normalized to Crown colony status:
*the Province of Nova Scotia;
*the Province of Massachusetts Bay;
*the Province of New Hampshire;
*and the Connecticut Colony.
(There's also PEI, which could either be its own colony, as IOTL, or governed from Nova Scotia, as was the case IOTL until 1769.)

Keep in mind that they all have disputes of some kind with other colonies and with each other regarding boundaries, because of how the charters were worded. That would inform how large New England could become. Massachusetts and Connecticut have Western claims (though in the aftermath, much of MA's claim was basically Western NY), plus there's the whole dispute between NH and NY regarding the area now considered Vermont and northern New Hampshire; Nova Scotia, Canada, and Massachusetts also have some disputes regarding the area now considered northern and eastern Maine as well as most of New Brunswick. How those disputes get resolved, and by how much Massachusetts and Connecticut act on their Western claims would determine how large New England could become.

There's potential for a more settled Maine, and Boston can always grow even more.

Definitely.

On the other hand, British trade policy is likely to make New England less of a good destination for working class immigrants considering it won't be able to do any protectionism against the rest of the empire or have the rest of the US as an accessible market for industrial goods.

On the other hand, it can potentially leverage itself as the entry point for American goods into the British economy?

That could work - I could see it as having a possibility of starting off with semi-legalized smuggling as an exemption to the Navigation Acts (via a licensing system) early on in the Glorious Revolution POD (as long as it's hush-hush), which then gets enhanced later on. Or have it done all at once as a reward.

Actually that could be a good concession to give the colonial elites in Boston? Let them serve as a routing point for all British trade in north America? If so there's huge potential for the city. At some point someone may also cut middlemen and establish industries here to process raw resources from the continent, but they have to compete with the more established industries in the home country in the absence of tariffs.

I think if you figure out the economics of it, you'll have great data to draw the politics from.

Definitely. At the same time, it could also give it potential to follow the same trajectory Britain (and, later IOTL, the US) did. New England already has a generous land settlement, so it can leapfrog completely to starting industrialization on a massive scale, pushing heavily on exports.

 

[Nyvis]

Definitely. At the same time, it could also give it potential to follow the same trajectory Britain (and, later IOTL, the US) did. New England already has a generous land settlement, so it can leapfrog completely to starting industrialization on a massive scale, pushing heavily on exports.

Well the issue is that Britain has a development headstart. OTL the US north was consistently pro tariff because their industry really needed the help to compete with imported British industrial goods.

It'd be interesting to do a kind of reversal, in which New England is actually not that developed due to most industries still favouring Britain proper, with Boston being more of a trade hub for the colony than an industrial center and the rest being a network of towns built around agriculture.

Actually you could use that as a starting point for a sort of deconstruction because all of the colonies will have their issues, if we go with my idea for a divided congress.

Canada is going to be wracked by confessional divides, and doesn't have the most attractive land, as well as being vulnerable to a British naval blockade.

Pennsylvania and New York have a good claim to industry and trade but they also would lose an internal market if separate from the south. They can still do local exports and are good entry points to the west so they still have that going for them but don't have as much weight on trade matters.

The south has slavery pulling them away from healthier economic development. They're more likely to export cotton and buy finished goods from the people likely to buy it, as in Britain.

 

[Dan1988]

Canada is going to be wracked by confessional divides, and doesn't have the most attractive land, as well as being vulnerable to a British naval blockade.

Canada - would be a bit more complicated. From what I can tell in my reading, most Canadians really didn't care one way or another, but they were more hopping mad at the Americans as the occupation wore on. Not only that, but the only people who supported the Revolution were the Anglophone merchant community in Montréal. The Catholic Church was also in no state to provide any resistance - not only was adherence largely nominal at this point, but - that statement from the bishops and mention in the Quebec Act notwithstanding - it was still very heavily weakened by and not fully recovered from the Conquest and 1763. It was more focused on survival, and from the Church's POV didn't really matter who gave them breathing space. To the seigneurs and outsiders, though, it was a very different story, for obvious reasons. For the outsiders in particular, a huge part of the problem was that they totally misunderstood the situation in Canada and assumed it was more like how the Continental Congress itself saw the situation - and, as much as I hate to say it, the alliance with France in particular raised alarm bells inside Canada, and for very understandable reasons.

So there would be quite a ways to get the unease among Canadians going. In that sense, the American Revolution in Canada would be in two phases. Phase 1 would be dominated by the small Anglophone community as the dominant narrative, with the swift victory in Quebec City and all that. During Phase 1, Canada could participate in the Continental Congress, but once the British surrendered it would end up going its own way and not partake of any activities of the United States anymore. At this point, both the Catholic Church and the Francophone majority would be neutral throughout all this. Suspicions would be increased once French military officers and all that make the trip north - and all the old mutual hostilities and all that from the former colonial regime resurface. Furthermore, resentments would increase when the Continental Army begins to get the Francophone locals hostile to it by arresting anyone suspected of being anti-American, while at the same time importing economic problems northwards with the introduction of Continental currency.

Hence Phase 2, which could even happen while the Revolution itself is still going on and thus wrap itself around the British surrender. It could even be possible to see it as playing out like the OTL later Haitian Revolution, with both white Francophone and indigenous peoples (and their black and indigenous slaves) in the position of the Haitian people and the Americans in the place of the French, though with the added confessional element if the Catholic Church senses which way the winds are blowing. So Canada would be fighting for its freedom from the Continental Army, and eventually cement its status as an independent nation (though probably without the seigneural system and with some focus on abolishing slavery). As a result, once it comes time to have the new Constitution replace the Articles, Canada would just choose not to participate, and even refuse to ratify the Constitution (which is probably as close as one can get to independence/secession at that stage). Which would be reflective of a shift in power from the Anglophone merchants to the Francophone majority. While it would have some association with the US, it would not be part of it.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

Probably not even that.

I could see the southern states forming a confederation because they'll want to handle policing duty (aka slave catching) in a coordinated fashion, but I doubt the remaining northern states or Canada will want to be involved in that. So it'd be a defensive agreement on top and separate of that, probably?

Canada maybe, but remember slavery was legal in every of the Thirteen Colonies.

 

[Nyvis]

Canada maybe, but remember slavery was legal in every of the Thirteen Colonies.

Sure, but it was mostly domestic slavery and there wasn't much enthusiasm for expending efforts to support the south's institution, and that's only going to get stronger as time passes.

Alternatively, the remaining northern states stay in, and being a minority, end up breaking away later due to resenting the slavers' dominance of every government institutions once the institution wanes in their states.

 

[Dan1988]

Alternatively, the remaining northern states stay in, and being a minority, end up breaking away later due to resenting the slavers' dominance of every government institutions once the institution wanes in their states.

In that case, Virginia may be among the northern states ending up breaking away, since, as far as I can tell, it was probably the one Southern state pre-cotton gin that was most enthusiastic about abolishing slavery.

 

[xsampa]

What happens to Louisiana and the Pacific Northwest?

 

[Dan1988]

What happens to Louisiana and the Pacific Northwest?

Louisiana would be an unknown and all dependent on how events in France go; otherwise, it would probably remain Spanish in the near-term. The *Pacific Northwest (which as a concept probably wouldn't exist ITTL) is much murkier and hence more open towards how things develop.

 

[xsampa]

Louisiana would be an unknown and all dependent on how events in France go; otherwise, it would probably remain Spanish in the near-term. The *Pacific Northwest (which as a concept probably wouldn't exist ITTL) is much murkier and hence more open towards how things develop.

Haida protectorate?