Aftermath of an American Capture of Quebec in 1775

In December of 1775 American forces under Montgomery and Arnold attacked the city of Quebec. The attack itself ended up failing largely because of 1). Deserters informed the defenders in the city of the coming attack, and 2). Montgomery's death at the beggining of the battle.

So let's say that those two points don't come to fruition. So Montgomery lives, and let's say that either no one deserts, or the deserters don't reach Quebec City for whatever reason. What happens next? Do the Quebecois support the Americans? How does Britain respond? How does France respond? Does this gaurentee an American victory, does it motivate the British to raise the American colonies to the ground, or do the British go to the negotiating table?
 
How were the feelings of the common americans vs the catholic church in those days? If bad enough....

Didn't Washington have to ban celebrations of Guy Fawkes Night because they turned into such anti-Catholic bigotry? It might not have been the majority, but it shows there are enough that could cause trouble.
 
If Quebec joins the revolution and if the Americans still win, would Quebec necessarily choose to A: join the nascent united states B: ratify the articles of confederation?
 
Quebec has zero interest in joining the Rebellion, a fact which all of the contemporary Anglophones seem to have been completely obtuse to. "The English are killing the English? Outstanding!" seems to have been the near-universal sentiment.

Also, Montgomery's little force can't possibly hold the city against Hull when the latter arrives in spring. What he can do is delay Hull's entry into the New York theatre by perhaps three months; Hull is expecting to resupply and head south along the St. Lawrence, and if they chain the river and force him to bombard the city flat, then harry him all the way south overland with pinpricks, you're going to have some very cranky, hungry, sodden Regulars arriving months late.

Montgomery surviving is a fluke - he charged emplaced cannon across a river. Who does that? - but it will make him a major hero to the rebellion, along with his right hand man Benedict Arnold and his adjutant Aaron Burr. The effect on the rebellion is likely to be minimal; the survival and/or increased prominence of those three could lead to a significantly different post-rebellion America.

Actually, there's one other thing that might change. How many prisoners does Montgomery take, and how well can he afford to treat them? I seem to recall the garrison being very well supplied in anticipation of Hull's arrival, but food can only be stretched so far, prisoners have last claim on resources - an atrocity is possible here.
 
How were the feelings of the common Americans vs. the Catholic church in those days? If bad enough...
IIRC wasn't the passage of the Quebec Act one of the reasons that helped kick off the revolution in the first place? I definitely seem to recall there was a sizeable element that was pretty anti-Catholic.
 
A question, I checked wiki and saw that Montgomery was Irish-born. Was he a protestant Irish, or was he catholic? If he was Catholic he could possibly swade the Quebecois to joining the cause with something like "To the British to practice your religion and speak your language is a privilidge, but to us it's a God given right" kind of deal? However if he was protestant, then those bets are off.
 
It was largely a matter of luck and Benedict Arnold's efforts that the British did not successfully counterattack down the various lakes between Montreal and Albany OTL a year before the Battle of Saratoga and if the British are goaded into a moderately larger effort while much of the available force of American troops, officers, artillery...are lost in Montreal...
 
IIRC wasn't the passage of the Quebec Act one of the reasons that helped kick off the revolution in the first place? I definitely seem to recall there was a sizeable element that was pretty anti-Catholic.
It was mostly the fact that the Quebec Act also stopped settlement in the Ohio River Valley and also shut down the port of Boston.
Anti-Catholicism in the colonies should not be dismissed, but they wanted Canada. Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony as well. It was pre-approved to join in the Articles of Confederation.
 
Quebec has zero interest in joining the Rebellion
More than that, one major contributing cause of the Revolution (certainly not the only one...:rolleyes:) was religious toleration of Quebec Catholicisim.:eek: This was one of the Intolerable Acts.:eek:

What's much more likely is a slaughter of Catholic Quebecois by Protestant Rebels, perhaps enough to increase Quebec representation on the Brit side.:eek::rolleyes:
 
No way the population of Quebec ends up going along with the revolution. This likely ends up being a big negative for the Americans: not only do they have to expend resources and manpower trying to hold Montreal, but they'll end up rousing the Quebecois against them and provide more manpower for the British.

As has been mentioned, the American Revolution happened in large part because the British were seen as too pro-Quebec, by allowing them to maintain their culture, and assigning the lands to the West of the colonies to the province of Quebec.
 
Just curious: what emphasis is placed on the more embarrassing "intolerable acts" (e.g. the toleration of Quebec culture, restrictions of Indian appropriation) in American classrooms?
 
Last edited:
In OTL General Montgomery held talks with some prominent French-Canadians who agreed to send a delegation to Philadelphia once Quebec was captured. That of course never took place but had it occurred I don't know what stance they would have taken in Congress on Independence. Remember most if not all colonies had already declared independence from Britain individually before we joined together in unanimously in declaring our independence as a nation.

In Canada I think Montgomery and/or Arnold could hold off the first fleet under Hull with relative ease as it had only three ships and about a thousand soldiers. The Second Embarkation under Johnny Burgoyne was much larger and formidable consisting of 4000 soldiers and many warships. And even if he can repulse the initial attacks of these forces, Burgoyne's army would eventually grow upwards of 10000 strong with reinforcements while the Americans in Quebec are at the end of a very long line.

But assuming an American victory in Canada these forces would probably be redirected against New York and New Jersey making Washington's job much more difficult.
 
To be honest, seeing what happenned with Natives treaties... and war with spanish empire and around...

I wonder if a 'backstab' had happened, later; the american leaders drop their promises at least. By example due to 'WASP' hostility, rising...
 
Just curious: what emphasis is placed on the more embarrassing "intolerable acts" (e.g. the toleration of Quebec culture, restrictions of Indian appropriation) in American classrooms?

I don't believe there was any criticism of Quebec culture. The Founders' problems were with the state establishment of what they considered a tyrannical religion, and a legal system based on different principles (as in less protective of liberties) to the English law they admired:

"Also the act passed the same session for establishing the Roman Catholic Religion in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger, from so great a dissimilarity of Religion, law, and government, of the neighboring British colonies by the assistance of whose blood and treasure the said country was conquered from France."
 
IMO the most likely outcome here is that the British recover Montreal and Quebec City, but the Americans end up winning their war anyhow. Both US and Canadian history will proceed rather differently thereafter.

But say Canada Libre makes it out of the war somehow. Either the Brits decide not to attack, or the expedition's commanding officer is one of /those/ generals, or they just roll snake-eyes. Whatever.

Now what?

Well, I think it's likely that QL joins the Articles of Confederation. Why not? It's a loose federation, and they'll still have plenty of autonomy. Note that Benedict Arnold was authorized to offer the Quebecois equal status with the other states. So, you have a "United States" that includes fourteen colonies -- at least at first.

But by 1787 the wheels are visibly coming off the AoC. So there'll probably be a Constitutional Convention, much as iOTL. And now things get hinky and ginchy. Do the Quebecois even join? Or do they simply walk away? I have trouble seeing much enthusiasm in Montreal for a More Perfect Union with the much more populous Anglo states. Other hand, if Canada stays in, this TL's Constitution may be very different from ours.

Again, I think the most likely outcome is that Canada either doesn't send delegates to the Con-Con, or doesn't ratify the subsequent document, and thus peacefully secedes And I think it would be peaceful; the country was profoundly war-weary in the 1780s, and the concept of "Union" hardly existed yet.

The map of North America looks rather different in this TL. The northeast corner of the continent is still British, and the Hudson's Bay Company will still be trying to claim the far northwest. What's now western Canada will eventually be the subject of a three-cornered dispute. My best guess is that Britain still manages to claim the modern Yukon Territory, while French Canada / Quebec expands into most of what's now Ontario (though the US may grab the southern "tongue" east of Lake Huron) and Manitoba. The
Pacific Coast, who knows.

If Canada stays in, then at least there's none of this nonsense about having a Senate that's fair and balanced between free and slave. Canada probably spawns a second and then a third Francophone state in the north. Quebecois would not be abolitionists, but they'd find the southern slave system deeply alien, and would have no interest in supporting it.

Assimilation, hmm. Probably not in Quebec itself. But there'd be some interesting mixing in the new western states. I suspect there'd be more movement south than north -- Canada has more land, but it's /cold/ -- so by the mid-19th century there'd be Francophone minorities in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. Politically, the francophones would be natural Jeffersonian Democrats, so the political evolution of the US would be pretty different.

But, again, the most likely outcome is that the Americans hold Canada for a little while and then are driven out.


Doug M.
 
I could see OTL Ontario being split between Quebec and New York in a Quebec-joins-the-revolution scenario, but I don't see how you'd get a francophone majority state anywhere West: there are just too many Americans and no British to keep them out.
 
I don't see how you'd get a francophone majority state anywhere West: there are just too many Americans and no British to keep them out.

By 1790 OTL Quebec had around 200,000 inhabitants, almost all of them Francophone. By way of comparison, contemporary Rhode Island had about 50,000 people, and 1800 Delaware about 40,000. Had Quebec been an American state, it would have been just below the middle of the pack in population.

OTL, French Canada's lack of expansion was not because of a lack of bodies. Rather, expansion was artificially constrained by a combination of social imperatives and deliberate policy. Instead of heading west, the francophones stayed put for a long time, until what's now lower Quebec had some of the most densely populated rural land in North America.

Remove those constraints, and you'd have francophones all over the place.


Doug M.
 
Top