Revolutionary Quebec Border

Tallest Skil

Tallest Skil

Banned
I've been trying to come up with one of these for a while now, and I'd like others' opinions on what they think would have been a realistic border for Quebec after the Revolution was won.

All states with claims on unsettled territory were required to give them up in exchange for assumption of debt to the federal government, and so you saw Virginia give up claims to what is now Kentucky, North Carolina to what is now Tennessee, etc. So what of Quebec? Quebec at the time was very large, but its population in much of this area very not. What would a state of Quebec look like and how would those borders have come into being?

Here's my most recent attempt. Compare to some of the other states in the area; Quebec here is the largest state in the Union at point of independence.

R6Yqr9J.png


Previously I had Quebec smaller, since the below is roughly as populated as it was. Not to say people didn't live in the Laurentides, of course, just as people did live in what would become Kentucky before it was cut free from Virginia.

pG0Qg.png


I don't know. I still sort of like the smaller one. Thoughts?
 

jkarr

i think the smaller one is most likly...though theyd probaly have less in the north and lose the smaller of the two islands
 
Dan1988

Dan1988

If you're going that route - which almost seems borderline ASB to me, but if you want to go that way - then the logical route is to have both Upper Canada (what is now Ontario) and Lower Canada (what is now Québec) together. If you read the AoC, it's "Canada" that is mentioned, NOT Québec (Québec was the British-imposed name of the province, after the capital city).
 

Kaiser K

Dan1988 said:
If you're going that route - which almost seems borderline ASB to me, but if you want to go that way - then the logical route is to have both Upper Canada (what is now Ontario) and Lower Canada (what is now Québec) together. If you read the AoC, it's "Canada" that is mentioned, NOT Québec (Québec was the British-imposed name of the province, after the capital city).
Click to expand...




I never got that, Ontario is lower then Quebec, but it's Upper Canada? and Quebec is lower? silly Brits.
 
Tallest Skil

Tallest Skil

Banned
Dan1988 said:
If you're going that route - which almost seems borderline ASB to me
Click to expand...

To what route are you referring?

then the logical route is to have both Upper Canada (what is now Ontario) and Lower Canada (what is now Québec) together.
Click to expand...

Why's that?

MissWhatsittoya said:
I never got that, Ontario is lower then Quebec, but it's Upper Canada? and Quebec is lower? silly Brits.
Click to expand...

It pertains to the river. The upper part of any river is the part furthest from the outlet. Same with the Nile, which is where we get upper and lower Egypt.
 

Kaiser K

Tallest Skil said:
To what route are you referring?



Why's that?



It pertains to the river. The upper part of any river is the part furthest from the outlet. Same with the Nile, which is where we get upper and lower Egypt.
Click to expand...



Ohh............. thanks for clearing that up. I never got that, but it makes sense. I suppose, still sounds wierd through *still scratching head*
 
Tallest Skil

Tallest Skil

Banned
jkarr said:
i think the smaller one is most likly...though theyd probaly have less in the north and lose the smaller of the two islands
Click to expand...

Cap-aux-Meles is historically part of Quebec and was certainly part of it as defined in the Quebec Act. To give an actually populated area of the state to (, I assume, the state of Saint James Island) wouldn't go over very well with the Quebecois, right?
 

Socrates

MissWhatsittoya said:
Ohh............. thanks for clearing that up. I never got that, but it makes sense. I suppose, still sounds wierd through *still scratching head*
Click to expand...

It's not really weird. Something that is "up" is "higher", and the altitude of upper Canada is above that of lower Canada (well, the populated bit). Connecting "up" with "north" makes no sense. Even if you're looking at a map, "up" would mean coming up off the map above the table.
 

Kaiser K

Socrates said:
It's not really weird. Something that is "up" is "higher", and the altitude of upper Canada is above that of lower Canada. Connecting "up" with "north" makes no sense. Even if you're looking at a map, "up" would mean coming up off the map above the table.
Click to expand...



Ohh............................. *facepalm*
 
Umbric Man

Umbric Man

hmmm.

I agree with Dan1988 that Quebec would gain both Lower and Upper Canada in its territory in the Peace of Paris 1783:

-The USA can have control of the Great Lakes, but also due to Quebec now having a land claim to Upper Canada via the 1774 Quebec Act. New York also had one, incidentally.
-It was nearly given in 1782 during treaty discussions, and not having practical access to it thanks to the loss of the St. Lawrence further makes it pointless for Britain to keep.
-Upper Canada is also NOT part of the Hudson Bay watershed, nor was it politically part of Rupert's Land...so physical and political geography is another reason *Upper Canada would go Ameriquebecker in this scenario.
-I also think the USA would gain all territory north of Quebec to the said watershed/territory (exactly how the border was extended in the Quebec Act and again on Lower Canada's creation in 1791, in fact) so there's no pointless 'no-man's land' like there was between Rupert's Land/1763 Province of Quebec's borders.

I can at least say what I think a State of Quebec looks like when the land claims are ceded and it settles into 'modern-day' borders:

Southwestern: Just as New York ceded claims west of the Great Lakes, Georgia west of the Chattahoochee River, and Virginia down to South Carolina used the crest of the Appalachians in their states as western borders, so too would Quebec likely cede western claims at a natural border. The Ottawa River works perfectly in this regard. Good job.
Western: Straight line to Rupert's Land/Hudson Bay watershed. Same as OTL barring the shorter distance.
Southern-to-Eastern: Ala OTL.
Northern: I personally see the northern border of Quebec/the USA being NOT the 1763 border but the 1774 Quebec Act/1791 Lower Canada's northern border, which pushes it up to the HB watershed. Again, to have no pointless no-man's land that doesn't fit in with Rupert's Land.
Northeastern: A mixed bag. Would Newfoundland merely hold the 'coasts of Labrador' as in the 1774 Quebec Act, or would it gain back the entire natural Labrador Bay watershed like it held 1763-1774? Your call, there. I personally give it the 1763 border so Quebec's not too big geographically.

Via these borders - a good chunk of them geographic and natural, I should add - you should have a State of Quebec that's not nearly as sizable as OTL and thus A) not look ridiculous on a map compared to other states an B ) not throw the other states into a tizzy on land claims and potential economic power via geographic size (even if a good chunk north looks to be frozen wasteland, furs, remember...) yet C) looks quite good, IMO.

(I'm about to head to bed, but if someone could draw a map up of these borders, I would be vastly appreciative)
 

Admiral Ackbar

What if Canada didn't get such reasonable terms in the Quebec Act? That could also give a reason for them to join the revolution. Maybe the Brits gave the land south of the Seaway and the Great Lakes territory to the rest of the colonies and designate them English speaking and Protestant lands. After the war they can get some land back, but now don't have as much of a legal claim on that land.
 

Blackfox5

Most of that Quebec territory is going to be lost to the state of Quebec. There is no way most of that wilderness will remain with one state. Most of the European population is close to the St Lawrence River. That will obviously be part of any state of Quebec (or Canada or whatever it is called). They are also likely to be given any territory between that and south of the river until it hits the borders of the other states. In terms of how much it gets north and west, I don't know. It'll be limited though. I suspect Upper Canada will not be included.

The rest of the area will be divided into territories and administered by Congress until they are sufficiently settled to become its own state.

I feel that the state won't be as large as the first map, but could be bigger than the second. I have no facts to support that though. The first map just seems to incorporate too much wilderness.
 

thekingsguard

I imagine they'd go smaller, at first at least - they can always add to the state borders alter, like we did with a few of the other states.
 
Beedok

Beedok

I don't think that Saguenay and Lac Saint Jean would be a good northern border. It's a population centre more or less surrounded by wilderness. I think that the southern watershed of the Saguenay river would be used, to keep open the option of a northern "Canadien" state.
 

eschaton

There was virtually no anglophone settlement in OTL Ontario until after the Revolutionary War, when loyalists were settled there. Even if this area was not included in Quebec, it would probably have initially less settlement than IOTL, because Americans will have more attractive options. This means proportionately more Francophones, as they'll get an early start and claim the best land. Keep in mind that IOTL, portions of Ontario (Prescott & Russell, plus much of Northern Ontario), has retained Francophone status.

Thus, I could see the logic in at the very least keeping the entire northern bank of the Saint Lawrence River in Ontario. Even more is plausible, but it's more likely the next state to the West would be linguistically mixed, like New Brunswick.
 

Turek

Even today Quebec isn't that populated in the Northern Regions - none of Canada is. You'd probably have something like the second as a settled revolutionary border.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top