WI: No Quebec Act

[Paul Spring]

There were actually some Quebecois who joined the rebel American forces when they entered Quebec in 1775 - not that many, but some. There was actually a Canadian Regiment in the Continental Army for most of the rest of the war, which I believe was largely made up of people from Quebec who couldn't return home because they had thrown in their lot with the rebel forces.

Supposedly the church authorties remaining loyal to the British was a key factor in keeping the majority of the population loyal to the British.

The Quebecois and the New Englanders, in particular, had a long tradition of fighting each other, which is indeed a big obstacle to effective cooperation. On the other hand, the early US had such a weak central government that each state was practically a sovereign nation. Under the Articles of Confederation, Quebec could have remained French-speaking and had the Roman Catholic church as the province's established religion. You've got to remember that many of the British colonies thought of themselves as separate countries up throught the American Revolution. In some respects, South Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts were almost as different from each other as any of them was different from Quebec.

The main problem with having Quebec become French again is that while most of the people in Quebec would probably have liked it, the French government didn't want to. They had concluded after the 7 Years' War/French and Indian War that the cost of trying to defend Quebec and the allied Indian nations against the ever more populous British colonies just wasn't worth it - it seemed much more sensible to focus their colonial effort in the Caribbean and India, where valuable plantation cash crops and extensive trade had become much bigger money makers than Canadian firs.

 

[Glen]

Perhaps.., but not in the context of what was happening to the south....

Then it is quite understandable as triumph of strategic military planning.

Yes, and thus out of character considering how badly Parliament bungled so much else in those few critical years...

 

[Glen]

There were actually some Quebecois who joined the rebel American forces when they entered Quebec in 1775 - not that many, but some. There was actually a Canadian Regiment in the Continental Army for most of the rest of the war, which I believe was largely made up of people from Quebec who couldn't return home because they had thrown in their lot with the rebel forces.

Supposedly the church authorties remaining loyal to the British was a key factor in keeping the majority of the population loyal to the British.

Ah! Thank you, Paul. And thus it is possible that without the Quebec Act, the nucleus of unrest in Quebec might have reached a tipping point, and boiled over into full rebellion.

The Quebecois and the New Englanders, in particular, had a long tradition of fighting each other, which is indeed a big obstacle to effective cooperation.

Of course, some of the other colonies went at it with each other, too. And the Quebecois had just as big a history fighting the British themselves.

On the other hand, the early US had such a weak central government that each state was practically a sovereign nation. Under the Articles of Confederation, Quebec could have remained French-speaking and had the Roman Catholic church as the province's established religion. You've got to remember that many of the British colonies thought of themselves as separate countries up throught the American Revolution. In some respects, South Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts were almost as different from each other as any of them was different from Quebec.

Exactly, so at least until we get to replacing the Articles with a Constitution, there should be little problem. And by then, who can say?

The main problem with having Quebec become French again is that while most of the people in Quebec would probably have liked it, the French government didn't want to. They had concluded after the 7 Years' War/French and Indian War that the cost of trying to defend Quebec and the allied Indian nations against the ever more populous British colonies just wasn't worth it - it seemed much more sensible to focus their colonial effort in the Caribbean and India, where valuable plantation cash crops and extensive trade had become much bigger money makers than Canadian firs.

Interesting. I felt that the French would be tempted, but might prefer to have Quebec as part of the United States, turning an overseas liability into an asset by having then a strong voice in the new nation to protect French interests.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Okay,

the overriding concern for the Canadiens at this point in time is preserving there culture. that means the rights to their religion and language, both embodied in the surrender terms of '59. Without them, there probably would not have been a surrender at Montreal, but rather a bitter occupation.

Your original POD was a no Quebec Act....while this did codefy much of what was already in place. the fact remains that for the Canadiens and the RC church no governor had actually repealed those provisions up until that point and therefore driven a wedge between the British colonial administration and the Canadien population. By 1772 that will be increasingly unlikely as things are starting to turn nasty inthe colonies and the Br. will be looking at the St. lawrence prov. more and more as the key to them maintaining any semblance of influence on the continent....

As to remaining neutral if their is no Quebec Act. The BR. are not going to have alienated the Canadiens at this point. and they are in place. The Canadiens have been fighting either the British or the Br. colonials for nearly a century to preserve a French presence on the continent. For the ordinary "habitant" they are tired of war. So yes, they will sit by on the sidelines and let their two foes of the last century duke it out. At least until one of them comes to the table with something to change their mind.

As I said, once the Br and colonists come to Blows..you can bet the British will be bringing something to the table.

Some French Canadians did fight for the patriots in the ARW, but after 1775, there were just as many fighting in the Br. armies to defend Quebec from further invasion. The Canadiens, simply did not want to become Americans. Preserving there own culture and identity is paramount. Confederacy or no it really depends on what the Canadiens are offered instead by the Americans

Now if there is no invasion of Quebec as well and you add Lafayette going north..then I will grant you there is potential for trouble for the British. Who is to say the British will not respond with an even bigger "bribe" as you called it earlier. the actual Quebec Act with its grand borders as you called them is not out of the question in this context at this point.

Then again there is the little matter of French diplomacy. The French did not want Canada to be added to the USA. The Americans did not want the French re-ensconced on the St. Lawrence. Both would have preferred that the Br. retain it if anyone was to have it.

Hence my original position that they would if they revolted, they would probably seek their own independent state. You can bet that the French will be doing their utmost to secure the best deal for an independent Canada ( which by the way would be what it would be called, since Quebec is the name affixed after the proclamation of 1763 by the British, the vast majority of the population would still view themselves as "les Canadiens") before offering to support the Americans. The borders of New France would not be out of the question, that would still give the Americans undisputed control of the Illinois and Ohio country and the Indian terr. to the south of the Ohio. At the very least the same border through the Great lakes.
In truth it will depend on who's forces actually get to Detroit first....the Canadiens or the Virginians and Kentukians. If you get the Canadiens to revolt under the influence of Lafayette, and the Br. are foolish enough not to counter his influence then it is probably going to be the Canadiens I think...they are closer. A border along the upper Illinois and the Maumee is possible then. French mercantile interests will welcome the opportunity afforded by an independent Canada to re-establish themselves in some small measure at Montreal in the N. Am. Fur trade.

 

[Mathew Hall]

Quebec Act

All very interesting, and worthy of perhaps its own WI thread....

What does this have to do with a POD in 1774 of no Quebec Act?

The only reasons I doubt that would have happened is as follows: When the British - American forces successfully invaded Quebec that left a majority of French Canadiens that could have easily rebelled. The British wanted to appease the Quebecois by giving them their old rights and priviledges in exchange for loyalty to the British crown. The British actually considered deportation as they did in Acadia years back, but decided the population was too high and the French settlers too well established to actually carry through. Remember, the Quebec Act did appease the French-Canadians, but there was an overall attempt to assimilate them. This is still an issue facing Quebecois in Canada today.

 

[Mathew Hall]

Quebec Act

All very interesting, and worthy of perhaps its own WI thread....

What does this have to do with a POD in 1774 of no Quebec Act?

The only reasons I doubt that would have happened is as follows: When the British - American forces successfully invaded Quebec that left a majority of French Canadiens that could have easily rebelled. The British wanted to appease the Quebecois by giving them their old rights and priviledges in exchange for loyalty to the British crown. The British actually considered deportation as they did in Acadia years back, but decided the population was too high and the French settlers too well established to actually carry through. Remember, the Quebec Act did appease the French-Canadians, but there was an overall attempt to assimilate them. This is still an issue facing Quebecois in Canada today.

Also, one of the main things the American colonists disagreed with was the Quebec Act. This was one of the reasons the Quebecois didn't join the revolution - they wanted their social and religious order in tact. That was something the British guaranteed. They were scared to join the American Revolution because they just fought these same people years before, and didn't trust a dominantly protestant revolutionary force that could threaten their traditional order. I personally believe, if the Quebec Act had never been passed, the American Revolution (or at least some of its support) could have been completely avoided. Remember at this time, Quebec's border stretched into the Ohio Valley where American settlers were hungry for land but largely barred from it. Basically this left the British with two options: risk an uprising in Quebec and subsequently British order there, or leave the more established wealthier American colonies to suck it up.

Still, I like the post and think it was very interesting. Far be it from me to be accurate with this sort of thing. It's always interesting to think of what could have happened. I'm actually going to write an alternate history about what would have happened if the Canadian colonies had joined the American revolution as I personally think it would have been a much different world today. Good post!

 

[Wendell]

Okay, this is an idea I've been kicking around for a while now.

The Quebec Act of 1774 was probably the keystone to securing Quebec loyalty during the ARW (though it was also one of the 'intolerable acts' for the other Colonies). An uncharacteristically liberal (in terms of granting rights to Catholics) piece of legislation from Parliament of the time.

WI it didn't happen?

Probably the Colonies still had enough grievances to trigger the ARW. However, now we might see a Quebec much more receptive to the Continental Congress' calls to join them.

What happens if Quebec is the 14th Colony to break away from the British?

I see many, many possibilities in this...

No Quebec Act-The province becomes more Anglicized...Does Nova Scotia declare independence as well?

 

[AuroraBorealis]

No Quebec Act-The province becomes more Anglicized...Does Nova Scotia declare independence as well?

Exactly how does that happen.....the original 1763 proclamation wa supposed to encourage assimilation of the Canadiens...and it didn't happen...so how do they get more Anglicized?

 

[Wendell]

Exactly how does that happen.....the original 1763 proclamation wa supposed to encourage assimilation of the Canadiens...and it didn't happen...so how do they get more Anglicized?

Incorrect. The Quebec Act effectively guaranteed that Quebec would retain its Francophone Catholic majority indefinitely, by NOT assimilating the prevailing provincial legal system and language with that of England and the other colonies.

 

[Nicole]

Incorrect. The Quebec Act effectively guaranteed that Quebec would retain its Francophone Catholic majority indefinitely, by NOT assimilating the prevailing provincial legal system and language with that of England and the other colonies.

Correct, though the later Act of Union 1840 seemed to prove that even assimilation policies would not work.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Incorrect. The Quebec Act effectively guaranteed that Quebec would retain its Francophone Catholic majority indefinitely, by NOT assimilating the prevailing provincial legal system and language with that of England and the other colonies.

Incorrect....

The 1763 Act was part and parcel of the Act creating the Indian terr. and forbade white settlement beyond the Appalachians. A move designed to encourage the colonial Americans to move north to the shores of the St. Lawrence rather than inland and protect the indians. Achieving the twin objectives of gradual assimilation of the Fr. Canadiens and protecting the Indians from encroachment and preventing an unwanted war by the Brits with the interior native Americans. Unfortunately, most Americans simply continued to move west anyway and few moved north. The Act was a failure in that very came north ....those that did went only to N.S.

The Act also provided for the provision of an elected leg. ( never enacted, much to the chagrin of the few colonials that did come north) and for the replacement of French Criminal and Civil law (also never enacted)with English Civil and Criminal Law . In short, Quebec was supposed to be governed as a prov. no different from any of the other 13 colonies. However, Governor's Murray and Carleton ( both from Aristocratic backrounds) both felt more sympathy for the orderly Canadiens than to the unruly and vocal shopkeepers that had set up shop in the prov. to replace the Fr. merchant classes that had gone back to France.

By 1774, It was realized that the goal of assimilation would not be met. In the words of Carlton "barring a catastrophy the prov. would remain French until the end of time.' By this time it is also apparent that the Colonies and Britain are heading for trouble and thus securing a secure base of operations was essential to preserving the Br. position on the continent. That meant catering instead to the special needs of the prov....hence the Quebec Act.
By now it was painfully clear that Quebec would never be a prov. just like the others and its own unique needs would have to be addressed.

 

[Mathew Hall]

Actually the Americans did invade Quebec in the Revolution and held Montreal for a while before being repelled (primarily after they lost the battle for Quebec City). Also, the Articles of Confederation held (and I've heard this hasn't changed) an open invitation for Canada (province of Quebec at this point, but also includes the Maritimes), to join the union.

 

[Wendell]

Incorrect....

The 1763 Act was part and parcel of the Act creating the Indian terr. and forbade white settlement beyond the Appalachians. A move designed to encourage the colonial Americans to move north to the shores of the St. Lawrence rather than inland and protect the indians. Achieving the twin objectives of gradual assimilation of the Fr. Canadiens and protecting the Indians from encroachment and preventing an unwanted war by the Brits with the interior native Americans. Unfortunately, most Americans simply continued to move west anyway and few moved north. The Act was a failure in that very came north ....those that did went only to N.S.

The Act also provided for the provision of an elected leg. ( never enacted, much to the chagrin of the few colonials that did come north) and for the replacement of French Criminal and Civil law (also never enacted)with English Civil and Criminal Law . In short, Quebec was supposed to be governed as a prov. no different from any of the other 13 colonies. However, Governor's Murray and Carleton ( both from Aristocratic backrounds) both felt more sympathy for the orderly Canadiens than to the unruly and vocal shopkeepers that had set up shop in the prov. to replace the Fr. merchant classes that had gone back to France.

By 1774, It was realized that the goal of assimilation would not be met. In the words of Carlton "barring a catastrophy the prov. would remain French until the end of time.' By this time it is also apparent that the Colonies and Britain are heading for trouble and thus securing a secure base of operations was essential to preserving the Br. position on the continent. That meant catering instead to the special needs of the prov....hence the Quebec Act.
By now it was painfully clear that Quebec would never be a prov. just like the others and its own unique needs would have to be addressed.

You never addressed the impact of Quebec being able to maintain a distinct legal system.

 

[Sir Isaac Brock]

Okay, this is an idea I've been kicking around for a while now.

The Quebec Act of 1774 was probably the keystone to securing Quebec loyalty during the ARW (though it was also one of the 'intolerable acts' for the other Colonies). An uncharacteristically liberal (in terms of granting rights to Catholics) piece of legislation from Parliament of the time.

WI it didn't happen?

Probably the Colonies still had enough grievances to trigger the ARW. However, now we might see a Quebec much more receptive to the Continental Congress' calls to join them.

What happens if Quebec is the 14th Colony to break away from the British?

I see many, many possibilities in this...

No Quebec Act might make Canadiens less loyal to Britain, yes. But that doesn't mean they will throw in their lot with the Rebels unless they are offered a guarantee that they will have strong protections for the French language, Roman Catholic religion, and French legal system. IOTL that wasn't on the table.

You need to change that as well to really shake things up.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

You never addressed the impact of Quebec being able to maintain a distinct legal system.

Up until 1774. the British had not implemented the provisions of the 1763 Act regarding Eng. Civil and Criminal law...with the situation to the south, it is unlikely that they are going to rock the boat in the province and upset their relativly orderly relations with the Fr. canadien inhabitants and suddenly move forward with the replacement of French civil law. Even if there is no Quebec Act, the status quo is likely to prevail given the unrest to the south and the Br. need for secure base of operations in N. Am. Up until that point The Fr Canadiens had been content under the rule of both governor's Murray and Carlton. Thus even if there is no Quebec Act prior to the ARW. There will almost certainly be something like it during the course of the war or in its immediate aftermath, if the Br. are left as historical, only with their St. Lawrence and Maritime possessions.

 

[Glen]

No Quebec Act might make Canadiens less loyal to Britain, yes. But that doesn't mean they will throw in their lot with the Rebels unless they are offered a guarantee that they will have strong protections for the French language, Roman Catholic religion, and French legal system. IOTL that wasn't on the table.

You need to change that as well to really shake things up.

Well, at first all those things would have been available to a Quebec that threw in its lot with the Continental Congress. Remember that they were a rather loose association at first, and the Articles of Confederation would have taken none of those away from Quebec.

It is only when we reach OTL's crafting of the Constitution, and thus conversion of the system to a more centralized (relatively speaking) federation, that the Quebecois might feel a little concern, though the Constitution still would not threaten those rights for Quebec (though they might push for more positive rights for themselves being included in, like "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of language," etc.).

 

[Glen]

Up until 1774. the British had not implemented the provisions of the 1763 Act regarding Eng. Civil and Criminal law...with the situation to the south, it is unlikely that they are going to rock the boat in the province and upset their relativly orderly relations with the Fr. canadien inhabitants and suddenly move forward with the replacement of French civil law. Even if there is no Quebec Act, the status quo is likely to prevail given the unrest to the south and the Br. need for secure base of operations in N. Am. Up until that point The Fr Canadiens had been content under the rule of both governor's Murray and Carlton. Thus even if there is no Quebec Act prior to the ARW. There will almost certainly be something like it during the course of the war or in its immediate aftermath, if the Br. are left as historical, only with their St. Lawrence and Maritime possessions.

However, it sounds like you are arguing that the Quebec Act was actually superfluous, having little more than propaganda value (positive in Quebec, negative in the colonies). And if that is the case, there may never be one, though it wouldn't matter because you are arguing that those provisions were unnecessary.

However, there was one big difference between the 'prevailing conditions' and the Quebec Act - Land. The Quebec Act greatly increased the territories of what would be considered Quebec, giving back some of the territories severed from it in 1763, and granting others. Maybe this had little effect on the Quebecois and their choices. But it is a difference.

Don't know exactly what that means...

 

[Othniel]

No Quebec Act might make Canadiens less loyal to Britain, yes. But that doesn't mean they will throw in their lot with the Rebels unless they are offered a guarantee that they will have strong protections for the French language, Roman Catholic religion, and French legal system. IOTL that wasn't on the table.

You need to change that as well to really shake things up.

One, have you ever heard of state rights? State Rights include the abillity to make your own constution.

Two, The United States has no official lanague, only that English is in common use.

Three, the first grouping after the declaration of Independance was to right up something to keep them in union. However these states were all in a millitary alliance at this time. Each state was treated as its own country, as such Quebec would have a great level of autonomy under the Articles of Confederation. The Roman Catholic faith, for example, would not have need been disestablised until the constution itself. Many of the states had state churches until they decided not to anymore, or the first amendment came into play.

Quebec wouldn't even have to join the Union to stand in with the Rebels and throw off British oppression. And until the 1790s it would have been treated as a sperate country until the US Constution came into play, it not even having to ratify it. (2/3rds of the States had to ratify it for it to come into effect.)

 

[Nicole]

Quebec, unlike Rhode Island, is large enough and not as dependent on the rest of the USA, to not ratify the Constitution and get away with it.

 

[Glen]

One, have you ever heard of state rights? State Rights include the abillity to make your own constution.

Yep.

Two, The United States has no official lanague, only that English is in common use.

Also true.

Three, the first grouping after the declaration of Independance was to right up something to keep them in union. However these states were all in a millitary alliance at this time. Each state was treated as its own country, as such Quebec would have a great level of autonomy under the Articles of Confederation.

Exactly.

The Roman Catholic faith, for example, would not have need been disestablised until the constution itself. Many of the states had state churches until they decided not to anymore, or the first amendment came into play.

Actually, the first amendment would originally have applied only to the Federal government, IIRC. Therefore, the STATES could theoretically have an established church, but not the Federal Government. However, most states adopted the idea of separation of church and state in their own constitutions, IIRC.

Quebec wouldn't even have to join the Union to stand in with the Rebels and throw off British oppression. And until the 1790s it would have been treated as a sperate country until the US Constution came into play, it not even having to ratify it. (2/3rds of the States had to ratify it for it to come into effect.)

All more or less true.