WI: Independent Quebec after the American Revolution

[Jackson Lennock]

What if Quebec had joined the American Revolution, but afterward became an independent republic as well?

The British would still have Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and so forth. The same would be true of Rupert's land. I suppose they would try to retain the Gaspe Peninsula and Anticosti Island. The Americans probably get most of Upper Canada, although a Canadian-American dispute over what to do with the Old Northwest and Ontario could emerge.

 

[Dan1988]

Well, if it became independent, it would be called Canada - that's what the revolutionaries addressed it as, that's their preferred name, so Canada it is.

Outside of that, having it hold onto territory far beyond the Great Lakes - although essential for maintaining the fur economy - is probably not going to happen, although it would be nice. However, the rest of the Pays de l'Haut (the upper country, aka what would eventually be known as Upper Canada/Canada West/Ontario)? That was not really all that contested as there were few if any illegal American settlers in those areas (it was far more convenient to go for Upstate or the areas near the Appalachians), so I could it stay.

After that, it all boils down to how Canada joins the Revolution, and by what means are used to entice them. For example, did the revolutionary forces promise and then carry out a land reform that displaced the seigneural class? Land is at the center of a few grudges the Canadiens had with the existing authorities, as a holdover from attempting to reinstate or at least maintain the old seignuerial system. Abstract principles, such as what those in Philadelphia were proposing, are not going to work to win people over, given the anti-Catholic mood over much of British America (exceptions notwithstanding). Concrete stuff, OTOH? Sure.

 

[GBW]

Considering the time, I'd think the natives of New France would rather go back under French rule rather than be independent. Which might lead to an independent Quebec - or Canada - when the French Revolution happens and the relatively conservative French colonials side with the monarchy instead. The British might prop them up as a government-in-exile for their preferred French government, or the British might try to seize the territory when relations with the USA go downhill later on as I doubt America wants to see the British regaining that much land on their northern border.

 

[Dan1988]

Considering the time, I'd think the natives of New France would rather go back under French rule rather than be independent.

Perhaps, but given that there was already quite a bit of bad blood between the two well before 1763, it would be equally likely that they'd also like independence. After all, what little sympathy there was amidst all the neutrality should be noted.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

Well, if it became independent, it would be called Canada - that's what the revolutionaries addressed it as, that's their preferred name, so Canada it is.

Outside of that, having it hold onto territory far beyond the Great Lakes - although essential for maintaining the fur economy - is probably not going to happen, although it would be nice. However, the rest of the Pays de l'Haut (the upper country, aka what would eventually be known as Upper Canada/Canada West/Ontario)? That was not really all that contested as there were few if any illegal American settlers in those areas (it was far more convenient to go for Upstate or the areas near the Appalachians), so I could it stay.

After that, it all boils down to how Canada joins the Revolution, and by what means are used to entice them. For example, did the revolutionary forces promise and then carry out a land reform that displaced the seigneural class? Land is at the center of a few grudges the Canadiens had with the existing authorities, as a holdover from attempting to reinstate or at least maintain the old seignuerial system. Abstract principles, such as what those in Philadelphia were proposing, are not going to work to win people over, given the anti-Catholic mood over much of British America (exceptions notwithstanding). Concrete stuff, OTOH? Sure.

My guess is the border is either the Nippising line or the 45th parallel would be the border. Whether this border extends to include Northern Michigan and Wisconsin is a different matter.

In this scenario, I'm thinking the Quebecois/Canadians just rebel separately due to opportunity knocking. I suppose land reform can also be a trigger.

 

[Dan1988]

My guess is the border is either the Nippising line or the 45th parallel would be the border.

For a southern border, it's easier to specify the Great Lakes and the Detroit and St. Lawrence Rivers as boundaries. Natural features are easy to use as boundaries in this case; whether or not what is now Michigan is also included is a different story (probably not, if the Detroit River is used as a boundary). The Laurentian Divide, too, historically also de facto functioned as *Canada's northern border until IOTL in 1870, when Ottawa purchased the HBC's old territories.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

For a southern border, it's easier to specify the Great Lakes and the Detroit and St. Lawrence Rivers as boundaries. Natural features are easy to use as boundaries in this case; whether or not what is now Michigan is also included is a different story (probably not, if the Detroit River is used as a boundary). The Laurentian Divide, too, historically also de facto functioned as *Canada's northern border until IOTL in 1870, when Ottawa purchased the HBC's old territories.

It may be easier, but it would also be more difficult to hold on to in the face of American settlers.

 

[raharris1973]

The Americans probably get most of Upper Canada,

This suggests the Americans getting the entire north shore of the Great Lakes, all of Ontario province (the populated part) that is not part of Rupert's land owned by HBC. So the Ontario peninsula and more beyond around Lake Superior.

although a Canadian-American dispute over what to do with the Old Northwest and Ontario could emerge.

But this suggests the Quebecois (here called Canadiens) are disputing all that, plus Michigan, Wisconsin, northeast Minnesota, and even Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois beyond.

So which is it that you predict happens?

My prediction would be les Canadiens don't have the numbers of settlers or soldiers, even with superior Amerindian alliances, to contest lands south of the Great Lakes. They've possibly got potential in lands part of today's Ontario, but that would be the limit, and they might not win there either, at least over the long haul.