If America annexed Canada after joining the CP, could it assimilate Canada?

[Interdimensional Nomad]

It would be interesting how annexing Canada would affect US politics as a whole. A US State of Quebec would be solidly majority francophone (and I strongly doubt they would let Quebec go independent, if I remember right War Plan Red called for all Canadian provinces to be turned into US states), so while there would be an effort to assimilate them (in the sense of encouraging English-speaking and, on an unofficial level, discouraging Catholicism), they would see quite a bit of success in resisting these efforts. Canada has already tried to do the same to them, so they certainly wouldn't be strangers to anglophone federal governments trying to impose their language on them. There would be a solid attempt at cultural and linguistic assimilation during the period of military occupation, but as soon as that ends I predict that pro-francophone parties would form and get elected to the state government. Court challenges would abound, but the state government, like many state governments in OTL, would be fiercely protective of its autonomy. While in OTL all states that have designated an official language have designated English as such, I'm fairly sure there are no constitutional barriers to designating another language as official, like French. So Quebec would probably be free to do so.

Quebec in the modern day would probably look fairly similar to the way it does as a province in OTL; a culturally and linguistically unique state where French is the dominant language, and larger cities (where immigrants concentrate) are bilingual to some extent. Independence referendums might happen every now and then like in OTL, though given that the US has had the example of the Civil War as to what happens to secessionists, I doubt they gain as much traction as OTL (the state of Ontario, as the most populated part of former Canada, may also have such referendums, though smaller and even less successful because they would have assimilated more easily). Their successful example of linguistic autonomy could inspire other parts of the US to try to follow suit though; I imagine there's a greater chance that state governments in the Southwest would recognize Spanish, and a greater cultural revival and prevalence of French in Louisiana (it would help that the state of Quebec would probably build up a lot of historical, cultural, linguistic, and eventually official ties with them). In all, a US that includes Canada would likely grow into a more diverse and multicultural country than OTL, with at least three major languages, a region with a majority Catholic population (at least initially, they'd probably grow out of it like OTL) resistant to attempts to convert them, and a greater respect for the autonomy of its various population groups as a whole.

 

[Mikey]

I think it's really hard to separate this out from the actual nature of the warfighting itself, which would have a much bigger impact than anything in the background. We're not talking generically here about the ability of Canadians to assimilate into American culture, but of their eagerness to do so in the immediate aftermath of an extremely bloody war, and one in which the USA attacked at a crucial moment of weakness.

 

[Clandango]

What if free trade? Do we think it would involve a rise in the price farmers in the newly acquired territories could get? Especially as they would not be required to ship everything out in ports in Quebec, Ontario, etc. I expect the British would still want or need to buy masses of grain from Canada and the United States, though there is a possibility they find some other sources. They managed that in the American Civil War with cotton, though then they already had stockpiles of cotton and control over lands they could grow cotton in and that had already been growing it for generations. Maaaaay be more of an issue here, what with people needing to eat. I assume any company with Royal in the name would be nationalized by the Americans, but would private British businesses and consortiums be allowed to continue existing? Or would they need to get American owners or to be run primarily by locals? I read somewhere that during the World Wars the British government seized stocks, bonds, and overseas businesses of British citizens in order to sell them and to pay for war goods and supplies from the United States, and I am wondering what the fate of their businesses would be throughout the Americas. Would we see a bunch of countries picking sides, and then seizing British, French, and Confederate (If we are going with one of the Turtledove scenarios) businesses for themselves? May be that the countries with most of those also are big business partners with the Entente, so their governments might be friendlier with them than the Americans. Having French-backed Mexico, Confederate Filibusters, etc would be liable to make the Caribbean fairly polarized and more in favor of these extreme steps. And a real shame, Turtledove. You could have had the Dominican Republic staying Spanish, at least until the Confederates came along.

 

[Vabasion]

I don’t see the argument of Quebec staying Francophone holding much water. The population disparity between Canada and US is massive as is the immigration. Quebec, Ontario and everything else will be positively swimming in new arrivals that will assimilate into American culture. Massive swathes of Canada are underpopulated, there goes another Homestead act. Within a generation or two French Canadians will be a minority in Quebec as will Canadians in Canada.

 

[Dan1988]

Given how many French-Canadian immigrants their were in Maine and other northeastern border areas in the early 20th century, I'm not so sure the US would ever want to give more territory to Quebec simply on the basis of language. If they get added to Quebec, why shouldn't the adjacent areas with French-Canadian pluralities (or even majorities IIRC) be added as well? Anglophone communities (mostly Irish immigrants, but a sizable amount of other groups) were also larger in Quebec in the early 20th century than today, so I could see it being government policy to keep Quebec the size it is (except giving parts to Maine to settle border disputes) in the hope they can assimilate the French-Canadian population.

Which is probably the reality, but at the same time it would probably cause fewer headaches for the US to simply detach Quebec from the rest of Canada and treat it separately (and yes, getting that one village at Estcourt Station reunited again would definitely help there). After a brief period as part of the territory of Canada, Quebec 'leaves' (for some reason) and its government and status is reorganized to make it a protectorate/associated state of the US. That would considerably reduce some of the assimilationst pressure, but of course brings with it new challenges.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

It would be interesting how annexing Canada would affect US politics as a whole. A US State of Quebec would be solidly majority francophone (and I strongly doubt they would let Quebec go independent, if I remember right War Plan Red called for all Canadian provinces to be turned into US states), so while there would be an effort to assimilate them (in the sense of encouraging English-speaking and, on an unofficial level, discouraging Catholicism), they would see quite a bit of success in resisting these efforts. Canada has already tried to do the same to them, so they certainly wouldn't be strangers to anglophone federal governments trying to impose their language on them. There would be a solid attempt at cultural and linguistic assimilation during the period of military occupation, but as soon as that ends I predict that pro-francophone parties would form and get elected to the state government. Court challenges would abound, but the state government, like many state governments in OTL, would be fiercely protective of its autonomy. While in OTL all states that have designated an official language have designated English as such, I'm fairly sure there are no constitutional barriers to designating another language as official, like French. So Quebec would probably be free to do so.

Quebec in the modern day would probably look fairly similar to the way it does as a province in OTL; a culturally and linguistically unique state where French is the dominant language, and larger cities (where immigrants concentrate) are bilingual to some extent. Independence referendums might happen every now and then like in OTL, though given that the US has had the example of the Civil War as to what happens to secessionists, I doubt they gain as much traction as OTL (the state of Ontario, as the most populated part of former Canada, may also have such referendums, though smaller and even less successful because they would have assimilated more easily). Their successful example of linguistic autonomy could inspire other parts of the US to try to follow suit though; I imagine there's a greater chance that state governments in the Southwest would recognize Spanish, and a greater cultural revival and prevalence of French in Louisiana (it would help that the state of Quebec would probably build up a lot of historical, cultural, linguistic, and eventually official ties with them). In all, a US that includes Canada would likely grow into a more diverse and multicultural country than OTL, with at least three major languages, a region with a majority Catholic population (at least initially, they'd probably grow out of it like OTL) resistant to attempts to convert them, and a greater respect for the autonomy of its various population groups as a whole.

Not just Spanish in the Southwest. If the America joins the central powers that means the German language will survive in the midwest. The attempts to stamp out French in Louisiana in OTL were largely at the state level. I don't know if they'd be butterflied away (perhaps a demand for French-speakers for the occupation force or enmeity with Britain could do it). During the phase where Quebec is a US territory, though, it would be completely subject to federal jurisdiction. If there's a federal attempt to stamp out the French language, there would be a court challenge under 1st amendment grounds, and I can't imagine that the German Americans in the midwest would like the idea of forced Anglicization. As you said, it would probably also stoke ties between the Francophones in Quebec, Acadia, and Louisiana.

 

[Interdimensional Nomad]

I think it's really hard to separate this out from the actual nature of the warfighting itself, which would have a much bigger impact than anything in the background. We're not talking generically here about the ability of Canadians to assimilate into American culture, but of their eagerness to do so in the immediate aftermath of an extremely bloody war, and one in which the USA attacked at a crucial moment of weakness.

I imagine that in the immediate aftermath of the war, the general Canadian sentiment would be a resigned, numbed exhaustion. Acts of resistance would happen every now and then, but people would be all too aware of the sheer power and population disparity between the two countries, and that there's little they can do about the fact that the Americans are here to stay. Like in Occupied France in WW2, resistance movements would be a headache, but wouldn't threaten America's general presence.

Unlike Vichy France, the occupying power is a democracy, and would be eager to convince Canadians that they're still free, and eager to win them over. Military rule would be as short as possible, and the provinces would quickly be turned into US states, and their populations into US citizens. Given the autonomy that states have, the federal government would likely be willing to accept the governments that these populations elect, so long as they aren't pro-independence (if/when this happens, things could get dicey, but probably not violent). Then comes the waves of American settlers, the first postwar generation that would include a lot of intermarriage between American settlers and native-born Canadians, and the economic development backed by American money. I imagine the US and the German Empire, as the two victors, would eventually get into a Cold War-like ideological conflict, so the US would have the further motive to show that the Canadian states are free and willing members of the Union (unlike, say, the German colonies of Mittelafrika). In the end, the populations of the Canadian states would have about as much desire to leave the Union as modern-day Japanese have to drop their alliance with the United States (with the added bonus that a significant portion of the population will be postwar settlers from other states or their descendants).

But that's not to say that they will ever lose their Canadian identity. Like the OTL US states, they would each have distinct cultures, and would still have many ties to each other through the shared experience of having once been a country. It would give rise to some political ideas largely unique to them, and a unique culture and identity that the states share through historical ties (I wouldn't be surprised if July 1 is still an unofficial holiday in some, or if the state of Quebec still celebrates Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day). The term "Canadian States" would still be in the public vernacular, and refer to those ten states as a whole (the best comparison I can think of to this culture is the La Mexicanidad cultural movement in annexed Mexico in EBR's TL Separated at Birth). The movement wouldn't be as strong in the western prairie states that were less populated before the war and thus more heavily settled by Americans, but people who identify with its Canadian past would still be common, especially given that a majority of the population could trace their lineage to Canadian-Settler marriages, so it would still be very much there. Even without being independent, states can find a way to set themselves apart.

 

[ArtosStark]

I imagine that in the immediate aftermath of the war, the general Canadian sentiment would be a resigned, numbed exhaustion.

I think this understates things. Canada had a long and complicated history with the US, including multiple cross border incursions/invasions as well as a good stretch of free trade. Confederation had been, in large part, a measure to avoid American annexation and comments about subsuming Canada had scuppered a new free trade deal in 1911 and led to a change in government. And now, while Canadians are seen to be fighting and dying to stop another aggressive Empire on the other side of the world this supposed democracy has done the exact same thing to them.

Canadians will be pissed. And assuming the CEF is allowed to return home a fair number of them will be well trained and pissed. I would expect some serious issues in the years immediately following WW1.

As I said earlier, as long as relatively equal rights are granted soon enough and the Francophone and Native situations are handled well I can see the anger fading within a generation. I do think in the long run the US could integrate Canada. But I think that generation will be restless.

 

[Interdimensional Nomad]

I think this understates things. Canada had a long and complicated history with the US, including multiple cross border incursions/invasions as well as a good stretch of free trade. Confederation had been, in large part, a measure to avoid American annexation and comments about subsuming Canada had scuppered a new free trade deal in 1911 and led to a change in government. And now, while Canadians are seen to be fighting and dying to stop another aggressive Empire on the other side of the world this supposed democracy has done the exact same thing to them.

Canadians will be pissed. And assuming the CEF is allowed to return home a fair number of them will be well trained and pissed. I would expect some serious issues in the years immediately following WW1.

As I said earlier, as long as relatively equal rights are granted soon enough and the Francophone and Native situations are handled well I can see the anger fading within a generation. I do think in the long run the US could integrate Canada. But I think that generation will be restless.

Yeah, I probably should have worded it better, but I imagine it being on a similar scale to the French resistance in WW2.

 

[Jellico]

Unlike Vichy France, the occupying power is a democracy, and would be eager to convince Canadians that they're still free, and eager to win them over.

While it won't help the Canadians the US is going to take a reputational hit there. It's one thing to occupy a border province like Alsace Lorain. Its one thing to strip huge swaths of land off some brown Mexicans. But occupying and extinguishing a white western country? The US goes from benevolent to rapacious in international reputation.

 

[King-Emperor]

With eastern Canada, especially Ontario, there would definitely be a few decades of violence, probably similar to the Troubles of northern Ireland,

I don't see the US allowing Ontario to go in this sort of situation. There are scenarios where a USA having won against Britain would probably tolerate an independent Canada/Ontario/Whatever it ends up being called, but I don't think this is one of them. You'd need a scenario where either the US is on good terms with Britain, which is unlikely to be the case here or where the independent country won't be seen as a British puppet, which is also unlikely to be the case here. For example if the USA wins in a Trent War scenario, then there's a good chance that Canada simply becomes its own country decades before it did in OTL, but that's a scenario where the Canadians were both averse to becoming Americans and to the idea of being dragged into a war against the USA, and Americans knew it. In a USA joins the CP scenario on the other hand, Toronto and Ottawa would probably end up looking like Belfast and Derry/Londonderry, at least for a few decades, but I don't think that would make the USA willing to let Ontario go. They might even solidify the notion that an independent Ontario would be a threat to the USA.
Well the French-Canadians would certainly have an easier time convincing the Americans that their independence is not a threat to the nation. I'm less than convinced that we'd see a French-Canadian version of the Filipino-American war. Even with it being halfway around the world and even with the racism of the day, it generated considerable opposition amongst the American public. I don't think they'd tolerate the "kill every male over 10" orders if they're applied to white people so close by. I think Quebec getting independence is a possibility though far from certain. I think carving out parts of Ontario or the Maritimes are less likely. I think the USA would largely leave provincial boundaries unchanged except for the territorial disputes they had with Maine and Alaska, which would be resolved entirely in favor of Maine and Alaska, the Quebec-Labrador Boundary issue, and possibly merging PEI into Nova Scotia. I'm not sure there would be as strong a resurgence of the KKK. Klan ideology professed the racial supremacy of Anglo-Saxons, but that might not be as prevalent if the USA is fighting Britain, although most of the population would still be white supremacist.

You make a good point about how the race issue in the Phillipines and in Quebec would be perceived differently due to skin tone. However, I would note that an American conquest of Quebec would most likely occur after several hard-fought and brutal battles due to the lackluster US Army, as alluded to earlier in the thread. The bitter feeling towards the Canadians would IMO allow the American public to stomach a harsh reaction for a time, unlike in the Phillipines, where a near bloodless victory was marred by a guerilla war against people who had once been nominal allies. The distance would also make a difference here. The Phillipines are an archipelago half a world away, which required lots of rationalization to explain why they didn't immediately get independence or at the least a Cuba style relationship. Quebec, on the other hand, borders four U.S. states. The government could quite easily whip up hysteria about "the damned Papists" or some other such nonsense posing an existential threat to the American homeland, especially once the inevitable insurgency is in full swing. America would certainly not kill every male over the age of 10 here, but neither would the Quebecois have the breathing room to create a long-term resistance to Americanization.

 

[Interdimensional Nomad]

I don’t see the argument of Quebec staying Francophone holding much water. The population disparity between Canada and US is massive as is the immigration. Quebec, Ontario and everything else will be positively swimming in new arrivals that will assimilate into American culture. Massive swathes of Canada are underpopulated, there goes another Homestead act. Within a generation or two French Canadians will be a minority in Quebec as will Canadians in Canada.

Quebec in OTL has gone through waves of immigration while staying francophone (and being very determined to remain so). While the American diaspora would certainly be much bigger in a State of Quebec, it would likely be a gradual thing, and I imagine their present-day population likely wouldn't be much higher than OTL. The less populated western Canada will take in the majority of American settlers in the postwar era, especially if backed by a new Homestead Act. Ontario and Quebec are already relatively urbanized and have better-established populations by wartime, so are less attractive to homesteaders. Quebec especially wouldn't attract as many American settlers because I imagine Americans would rather move to the provinces where people speak the same language as them. They would come, of course, but I imagine it would be a gradual migration of mostly urban-dwelling or resource-extracting workers, moving for economic reasons rather than government-run settlement programs. A gradual migration that, rather than assimilating Quebec into the US, mostly gets assimilated into Quebec, having to learn French to get by in daily life, their children attending French-language public school, and intermarrying with the Quebecois population. There would of course be some communities of English-speakers, and the vast majority of people would be bilingual, but I could easily imagine French remaining the lingua franca. Quebec has always been very determined to protect the French language, and integrate immigrants into the wider culture (why they often clash with the multicultural attitudes of English Canada). Even as a US state, I imagine this attitude would continue, and the Americans coming gradually rather than all at once would be integrated.

On the other hand though, this increased immigration in the first half of the 20th century would probably cause Quebec to secularize earlier than OTL, basically like an earlier Quiet Revolution.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Integration of Canada into the US would probably be closest to Reconstruction in the South after the Civil War, where the goal is to make Canadians good American citizens and said states remain under occupation until then. I think without a doubt Quebec would be denied entry into the Union for quite some time given how strong anti-Catholicism was in the 1920s and would without a doubt be the last Canadian province that becomes a state. My guess is Ontario would be second to last, although still years ahead of Quebec. Occupation of BC and the Prairie Provinces would likely be rather short.

Speaking of Western Canada, I think in those states you'd see far more Canadian patriotism in the modern day than you would in the 3-4 decades after the annexation for a similar reason to why pro-Union areas like East Tennessee, West Virginia, or most of Kentucky, Missouri, etc. are full of Confederate flags and CSA nostalgia. While opposition to the Civil Rights movement did inspire some of that, a lot of that (especially in this day and age) is simple regional patriotism, and "government doesn't pay enough attention to us" sentiments. I think you'd find a lot of that in Canada too, so TTL you'll find people descended from a solid line of American settlers in Alberta or wherever waving Canadian flags on July 1.

While in OTL all states that have designated an official language have designated English as such, I'm fairly sure there are no constitutional barriers to designating another language as official, like French. So Quebec would probably be free to do so.

There are not, as states which have official languages have designated minority languages (mostly local Amerindian languages, although Alaska has Tagalog as an official language because of the huge Filipino population there). Ironically, only Puerto Rico has Spanish as an official language since states with large Hispanophone populations have no official languages (although for all intents and purposes Spanish is co-official).

Quebec in the modern day would probably look fairly similar to the way it does as a province in OTL; a culturally and linguistically unique state where French is the dominant language, and larger cities (where immigrants concentrate) are bilingual to some extent. Independence referendums might happen every now and then like in OTL, though given that the US has had the example of the Civil War as to what happens to secessionists, I doubt they gain as much traction as OTL (the state of Ontario, as the most populated part of former Canada, may also have such referendums, though smaller and even less successful because they would have assimilated more easily). Their successful example of linguistic autonomy could inspire other parts of the US to try to follow suit though; I imagine there's a greater chance that state governments in the Southwest would recognize Spanish, and a greater cultural revival and prevalence of French in Louisiana (it would help that the state of Quebec would probably build up a lot of historical, cultural, linguistic, and eventually official ties with them). In all, a US that includes Canada would likely grow into a more diverse and multicultural country than OTL, with at least three major languages, a region with a majority Catholic population (at least initially, they'd probably grow out of it like OTL) resistant to attempts to convert them, and a greater respect for the autonomy of its various population groups as a whole.

The governments in the Southwest have recognised Spanish for quite sometime and publish government documents, laws, etc. in Spanish, they just don't have it as an official language since they have no official languages in general. Independence referendums are unlikely since no state can leave the Union without the consent of Congress (IIRC it's a 2/3rds supermajority and is similar to a Constitutional amendment). I'm not so sure you'd ever get a supermajority like that.

I'm not sure if a state can declare a non-English language to be it's only language since even Puerto Rico has English as an official language. TTL I'd expect the Anglo minority in Quebec to be maybe 30% of the population (about 3 times larger than OTL) so would be very politically influential in stopping secession attempts and making it so local governments can't pass anti-English policies with lawsuits (most of Quebec's OTL anti-English policies would be very unconstitutional in the US).

Not just Spanish in the Southwest. If the America joins the central powers that means the German language will survive in the midwest. The attempts to stamp out French in Louisiana in OTL were largely at the state level. I don't know if they'd be butterflied away (perhaps a demand for French-speakers for the occupation force or enmeity with Britain could do it). During the phase where Quebec is a US territory, though, it would be completely subject to federal jurisdiction. If there's a federal attempt to stamp out the French language, there would be a court challenge under 1st amendment grounds, and I can't imagine that the German Americans in the midwest would like the idea of forced Anglicization. As you said, it would probably also stoke ties between the Francophones in Quebec, Acadia, and Louisiana.

There'd definitely still be repression in Louisiana thanks to anti-Catholic sentiment, which could spill into repression against German Catholics (or Germans in general because a significant number, especially German-speaking Jewish immigrants, where socialists and this was the period of the First Red Scare).

I could see a many Francophone voters in Quebec being disenfranchised for decades through literacy tests as a requirement for voting (it could also exclude poor Irish Catholics in the cities, which is an added bonus for the WASP ruling class). I could also see pre-war officials (including minor local politicians) and officers/NCOs in the Canadian military also being denied suffrage as well as people convicted of rebelling against the government in the years afterward. Loyalty oaths will be required from all citizens in order to vote. Like in the Reconstruction South (where much of the pro-CSA element was disenfranchised) or of course the Jim Crow South, this will produce a skewed electorate that will "vote right" and pass laws the elite want. This will probably result in pro-Anglophone, anti-Catholic policies for several years until the political winds change.

 

[Dan1988]

Integration of Canada into the US would probably be closest to Reconstruction in the South after the Civil War, where the goal is to make Canadians good American citizens and said states remain under occupation until then. I think without a doubt Quebec would be denied entry into the Union for quite some time given how strong anti-Catholicism was in the 1920s and would without a doubt be the last Canadian province that becomes a state. My guess is Ontario would be second to last, although still years ahead of Quebec. Occupation of BC and the Prairie Provinces would likely be rather short.

Well, in Quebec's case, I don't think it would ever become a state. It may not necessarily be an insurgency, but it would be in reaction to events happening elsewhere which are perceived to be a threat to the survival of the French-Canadian nation. I am, of course (considering the 1920s and all that) referring to the Sentinelle affair, which ITTL could be perceived differently than OTL. IOTL, the fallout led to Lionel Groulx and his circle becoming temporarily prominent within French-Canadian nationalism, for understandable reasons (even if today Abbe Groulx is now seen as reprehensible because of his opinions towards Jews); ITTL, it could accelerate a break between Quebec and the US that even traditional French-Canadian nationalists like Abbe Groulx and the Sentinellists could not bridge, almost like an earlier version of the Quiet Revolution but much more gradual. Therefore, the only way to make if possible for Quebec to achieve its aspirations would be to have a separate country just for itself, even if it starts off as a protectorate of the US (much like, IOTL, the later Commonwealth of the Philippines).

As a result, considering the huge pull Quebec had on French Canada (and French-Canadian/Franco-American communities in New England, Upstate NY, and the Midwest) as a whole, the repercussions would be huge, particularly in the evolution of (French-)Canadian identity, probably attempting to make it more inclusive - and, in the former Prairie provinces, probably more populist, even if they end up being essentially the Catholic version of the Mormons of the North.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

I'm not sure if a state can declare a non-English language to be it's only language since even Puerto Rico has English as an official language. TTL I'd expect the Anglo minority in Quebec to be maybe 30% of the population (about 3 times larger than OTL) so would be very politically influential in stopping secession attempts and making it so local governments can't pass anti-English policies with lawsuits (most of Quebec's OTL anti-English policies would be very unconstitutional in the US).

Anti-English laws would be unconstitutional, but as I said anti-French policies if adopted would also be challenged on free speech grounds.

There'd definitely still be repression in Louisiana thanks to anti-Catholic sentiment, which could spill into repression against German Catholics (or Germans in general because a significant number, especially German-speaking Jewish immigrants, where socialists and this was the period of the First Red Scare).

Anti-Catholic sentiment persisted through the 19th century, but both the 1898 and 1913 versions of the Louisiana state constitution provided for the right to a public school education in French. This changed in 1921. A CP-aligned USA is going to have different sentiments than in OTL. For example prohibition would probably be butterflied away. The Anglicization in Louisiana may still happen but its far from certain. As for anti-German sentiment ... it's a real stretch to assume that anti-Catholic or anti-leftist sentiment would morph into generic anti-German sentiment, especially if the USA and Germany fought a war together. I should also point out that the German American Catholics (and German American Protestants) were mainly in the Midwest, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Texas, while the German-American Jews predominantly lived in New York City. That geography does not make it likely that anti-Catholic sentiment directed at German Catholics would merge with anti-Semitism (or proto-McCarthyism) directed at left-leaning German-American Jews.

I could see a many Francophone voters in Quebec being disenfranchised for decades through literacy tests as a requirement for voting (it could also exclude poor Irish Catholics in the cities, which is an added bonus for the WASP ruling class). I could also see pre-war officials (including minor local politicians) and officers/NCOs in the Canadian military also being denied suffrage as well as people convicted of rebelling against the government in the years afterward. Loyalty oaths will be required from all citizens in order to vote. Like in the Reconstruction South (where much of the pro-CSA element was disenfranchised) or of course the Jim Crow South, this will produce a skewed electorate that will "vote right" and pass laws the elite want. This will probably result in pro-Anglophone, anti-Catholic policies for several years until the political winds change.

The literacy tests were a predominantly southern phenomenon, and the only aspect of an occupation of Quebec likely to be southern is if Cajuns and/or Louisiana Creoles form a large part of the occupation force, and they're not going to be trying to stamp out the French language. Since you mention the Irish-Catholics, working class Irish Catholics were already a major segment of the electorate. As for people serving in the Canadian military, why would they be be automatically disenfranchised? After the ARW Hessians were allowed to remain and become citizens; yes there were loyalists who were run out of town and eventually settled in Canada but most remained in the USA. After the Mexican-American War, Mexicans in the annexed territory got full American citizenship even if they'd fought in the Mexican Army (with the exception of those who chose to leave for Mexico after the war). I doubt the situation would be different for Canadians. American citizenship would be extended to anyone who doesn't leave for the remainder of the British Empire. Suffrage would almost certainly be denied to those convicted of rebelling against the government afterwards, and no doubt many of those people would be former Canadian soldiers, but simply having been a Canadian public official or an officer/NCO in the Canadian military would not be a disqualifier. Loyalty oaths are a possiblity but that would almost certainly during the occupation phase (and possibly the territorial stage depending on if/how much it extends past the end of military occupation). In any event the territory especially at first would only have limited devolved authority, and territorial governors were at that time appointed. And I don't see Jim Crow laws (another southern phenomenon) being imposed on Quebec.

 

[PGSBHurricane]

A more realistic Scenario would be an independent Canada/other dominions. I don’t think Britain would let the USA annex Canada, especially when Anglo-American relations would be as frosty as ever, if not more so.

 

[Dan1988]

Also, there's one more bit that seems to be overlooked - and could determine how well the Anglophone Canadian assimilation process goes. Let's have a look again at the OP:

We have discussed the prospect of the US joining the Central Powers many times. There is a strong consensus that it is unlikely, though there were ways Germany could have reduced its PR hits in the US and Britain could have damaged relations. For the sake of this thread, let’s assume Britain does everything wrong and Germany everything right with the US, resulting in an American declaration of war against Britain in 1917. I don’t think annexing Canada is a probable goal, but for arguments sake let us assume that the US occupies Canada’s population centers by early 1918 and the American president convinces congress to annex it, believing it will make him a legend on par with Jefferson, Polk, or Lincoln to expand the US to this degree. Italy and France are defeated while Britain faces serious shortages, resulting in Britain signing Canada over in exchange for an end to the US and Germany’s submarine campaign and resumption of international trade.

If Britain is doing everything wrong to the point where Canada is getting annexed (and, presumably, other British colonies in the Western Hemisphere as well - if Wiki is right, War Plan Red [well, War Plan Crimson specifically for Canada] wanted the US military to focus on the Western Hemisphere first before dealing with the rest of the British Empire), that would make Britain ripe for that most un-British thing and head for the extremes. In particular, if the Soviet Union still exists ITTL, it would be doubly ironic (considering OTL history) if around that time, or even before or after the February and October Revolutions, if Britain decided to join the dark side and wave the red flag around as a (cynical) response to Whitehall and Westminster mounting such a disastrous response. As far as Canada (and Newfoundland, for that matter, although by that point it was already de facto independent thanks to the 1907 Colonial Conference raising it and New Zealand to Dominion status) would be concerned, that would be a crushing blow to any remaining pro-British sentiments. Whether that would fuel a begrudging acceptance of becoming part of the US or not would remain an open question.

 

[Mikey]

There's also just not a lot of precedent for how the United States acts as a large-scale occupying power, whether or not it has the intention to integrate the new territory as states or not. Prior expansions were of territory that was either sparsely populated, and/or populated by Native Americans who the United States tended to dominate and exterminate.

This is different, almost a kind of unwilling "reunification" of British North America, that may well be based on American public opinion believing that Canadians will very eagerly become Americans, and then being disappointed if there's any degree of resistance. Will the US appoint a military government and rule Canada from Washington, or will they hold elections that may return anti-American governors and legislatures in the new 'states.' When will Canadian Congressmen be seated? What will candidates in future elections offer Canada when campaigning?

It's certainly true that Canada is small compared to the US in total population, but it's not so tiny as to be irrelevant to national politics. It'll be about as big as New York or Pennsylvania, then the largest two states in the Union.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Independence referendums are unlikely since no state can leave the Union without the consent of Congress (IIRC it's a 2/3rds supermajority and is similar to a Constitutional amendment). I'm not so sure you'd ever get a supermajority like that.

There's no specific constitutional requirement as to what level of majority would be necessary for a state to obtain the "consent of Congress" to secede, so it would be hard to argue from a legal viewpoint that it would be a supermajority. Probably a supermajority would functionally be required, but that would be because of filibusters rather than because of a hard requirement per se.

 

[Mikey]

There's no specific constitutional requirement as to what level of majority would be necessary for a state to obtain the "consent of Congress" to secede, so it would be hard to argue from a legal viewpoint that it would be a supermajority. Probably a supermajority would functionally be required, but that would be because of filibusters rather than because of a hard requirement per se.

I think this is ultimately one of the reasons why the USA would want to *avoid* annexing Canada. You either have to make it very clear this is a permanent annexation by right of conquest (which would blow a lot of the PR opportunities) or else you'd have to set up some kind of system for Canadians to eventually, democratically, depart from the USA, and that could very easily have consequences.