WI: No Quebec Act

Glen

Moderator
Imajin said:
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.

True. However, they didn't have to ratify it. The question is, would they have? Quebec has stayed in Canada all this time. It is entirely possible that ITTL, they would have been satisfied with remaining with the Union for reasons of mutual defense and trade, confident that their States Rights would protect their language and laws. Also, since they would have been party to the development of the US Constitution, they may very well have added or alterred clauses or amendments to give them the degree of protection that would make them comfortable enough to stay in the Union.

Quebec would have been one of the most distinct states in the Union, without a doubt, but they may have seen more advantage in remaining in that Union than going it alone.
 
Glen Finney said:
True. However, they didn't have to ratify it. The question is, would they have? Quebec has stayed in Canada all this time. It is entirely possible that ITTL, they would have been satisfied with remaining with the Union for reasons of mutual defense and trade, confident that their States Rights would protect their language and laws. Also, since they would have been party to the development of the US Constitution, they may very well have added or alterred clauses or amendments to give them the degree of protection that would make them comfortable enough to stay in the Union.

Quebec would have been one of the most distinct states in the Union, without a doubt, but they may have seen more advantage in remaining in that Union than going it alone.
However, how much will the Canadiens want to be with the Anglo-Americans, or the other way around? Is the Revolutionary War enough to wipe away years of mutual hatred dating back to the founding of Montreal?
 

Glen

Moderator
Imajin said:
However, how much will the Canadiens want to be with the Anglo-Americans, or the other way around? Is the Revolutionary War enough to wipe away years of mutual hatred dating back to the founding of Montreal?

Those years of 'mutual hatred' didn't seem to bother the Revolutionaries when they invited the Quebecois to join them.

also, they didn't seem to bother the Quebecois when they were part of and stayed in the Canadian Confederation.
 
AuroraBorealis said:
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.
The biggest problem with the Quebec Act and the Proclamation line was that the colonists saw them as a slap in the face. They had just won all of this land for Britain, and then the Crown bars them from it.
 

Glen

Moderator
Since someone brought this up in the Avert American Revolution thread, thought I'd do a little thread resurrection.
 
Mathew Hall said:
The only reasons I doubt that would have happened is as follows: 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.

I'd like to see some evidence of that, so if you can provide a source that would be helpful. I've studied lots of Quebec history and read just about all of the House of Commons debates from the period and have found quite the contrary. The same goes for Sir Guy Carleton's correspondences with the imperial government in London.
 
There had been efforts to assimilate our ancestors - this is fact. Not always an official policy, but local rulers and authorites always worked agaisnt where my people was not strong enough to fight for their rights.
 

Glen

Moderator
So, you two. What do YOU think Quebec would have done in the American Revolutionary Period without a Quebec Act?
 
Glen said:
So, you two. What do YOU think Quebec would have done in the American Revolutionary Period without a Quebec Act?

If - and if - Britain had shown nothing but contempt for them and America would have shown serious signs that the country would preserve better the future of my ancestors, and ensure the position of the church, they may have swung from Britain to USA, maybe. Or at least a certain form of neutrality, which would have changed the state of the war in the region of New England perhaps.

Of course, there is the case of the rampant anti-papism and anti-french feelings of many an americans. But maybe USA would treat them like the latin people of the future southern states of OTL?
 
My theory is no Quebec Act was needed to get the French to be loyal, it just formalised the official British policy up until then. However, for the Americans the Quebec Act was the straw that broke the camel's back. Many Virginians were land speculators and owned land west of the proclamation line in what according to the act was now Quebec. They were not too happy about the idea of seigneuries and tithes to the Catholic church spreading Ohio.

Early on the British were generally impressed with how loyal and peaceful the habitants of Quebec were. This is the impression I have from letters written at the time. The Quebec Act of 1774 simply rewarded the Quebecois formally for their loyalty. The seigneurial system had been recognised by the British in 1771 and they strengthened it rather than abandon it. This hampered American settlement in the area since most New Englanders scoffed at being under a seigneur (especially when over half of the seigneuries belonged to religious orders of the Catholic Church).

In late 1760 just after the conquest Abbot of Quebec, Monsignor Briand was paid 20 pounds by the English governor James Murray. So early on the British government knew how to use the Catholic Church to its advantage.

Below is part of Section IV of the 1763 Treaty of Paris, it shows how the British from the onset agreed to allow the French to continue to practise the Roman Catholic faith.

"His Britannick Majesty, on his side, agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholick religion to the inhabitants of Canada: he will, in consequence, give the most precise and most effectual orders, that his new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their religion according to the rites of the Romish church, as far as the laws of Great Britain permit. His Britannick Majesty farther agrees, that the French inhabitants, or others who had been subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada, may retire with all safety and freedom wherever they shall think proper, and may sell their estates, provided it be to the subjects of his Britannick Majesty, and bring away their effects as well as their persons, without being restrained in their emigration, under any pretence whatsoever, except that of debts or of criminal prosecutions: The term limited for this emigration shall be fixed to the space of eighteen months, to be computed from the day of the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty."

The British for the most part allowed a live and let live policy to operate in Quebec. The troubles began when the loyalists began arriving. They began pushing for a legislative assembly, which most Canadiens opposed (since in French history the only time an assembly was called was to raise taxes). As Anglos poured into Montreal and to a lesser extent Quebec City they began to dominate the commerce of the colony and began to accuse the French of disloyalty during the Napoleonic Wars. In reality most were simply apathetic to the British cause. The English speakers began demanding French assimilation in the Quebec Mercury (newspaper), the Parti Canadien was the response and they began printing Le Canadien. They're both fascinating to read since they polarised the two communities. However, the best of all is the Quebec Gazette beginning in 1764. Most of the front page stories tend to be month old news from France. The execution of King Louis XVI and later Marie Antoinette dominated for months on end. It's interesting because early on in the revolution (up until late 1792), the English press was supportive of the reforms taking place in France, while the Canadiens were disgusted by the treatment of the clergy. Once the king was imprisoned both sides seemed to have agreed. There were even revolutionary agitators that tried to stir up revolutionary sentiment in Quebec, but they had little success.

And on an ending note, there were Quebec French willing to help out the Americans, but as I said above when they started to pay in worthless paper money, people were not happy, and it shows from reading letters of people at the time to each other. Any good will the Americans had seemed to have evaporated the moment they ran out of silver.
 

Glen

Moderator
Thank you for your insights, both of you.

Very interesting stuff, have to think upon it.

BTW, I had one thought for a timeline where there was more immigration of former Jacobite Scots to Nova Scotia in the mid 1700s and a deranged one assassinated Carleton on his assumption of office in Quebec (en abstentia revenge on Cumberland whose aid Carleton had been for a time), but escaped and the assassination was thought erroneously by a Quebecois, leading to repression in Quebec in the years prior to the American Revolutionary War. Thus the Maritimes/Nova Scotia which were anti-English from their Jacobite roots and the Quebecois who had been poorly treated by the crown both sent delegations to the Continental Congress and had some level of rebellion in their areas, leading to their inclusion in the USA in the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

What do you two think of that scenario?
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
General comment

My pet peeve in timelines is when an independent Quebec has the same borders as the modern province of Quebec, despite not being a recent POD.
 
Glen said:
General comment

My pet peeve in timelines is when an independent Quebec has the same borders as the modern province of Quebec, despite not being a recent POD.
The Ottawa River is a quite plausible border, the Newfoundland border is an old claim dating back, the Ungava border is quite plausible taking the Ottawa border, especially when you consider that Quebec's northern border was often undefined, they could move northwards in a theoretical war of independence (admittedly begging the question why they didn't capture Labrador too)
 

Glen

Moderator
Imajin said:
The Ottawa River is a quite plausible border, the Newfoundland border is an old claim dating back, the Ungava border is quite plausible taking the Ottawa border, especially when you consider that Quebec's northern border was often undefined, they could move northwards in a theoretical war of independence (admittedly begging the question why they didn't capture Labrador too)

The borders are not, in and of themselves, implausible.

That they are the same again and again and again are.
 
How about giving the Quebecois the area that is southern Ontario IOTL? Suppose that the portion east of the St. Lawrence somehow ended up in U.S. hands...
 

Glen

Moderator
Wendell said:
How about giving the Quebecois the area that is southern Ontario IOTL? Suppose that the portion east of the St. Lawrence somehow ended up in U.S. hands...

I doubt we'd see the break up into upper and lower 'Canada' ITTL as Canada would go into the USA, and thus not be a place for loyalists to flock to, which is what happened IOTL that eventually led to the split IIRC.
 

Glen

Moderator
Wendell said:
How about giving the Quebecois the area that is southern Ontario IOTL? Suppose that the portion east of the St. Lawrence somehow ended up in U.S. hands...

I doubt we'd see the break up into upper and lower 'Canada' ITTL as Canada would go into the USA, and thus not be a place for loyalists to flock to, which is what happened IOTL that eventually led to the split IIRC.
 

Glen

Moderator
I still find the question of what would have happened if there had been no Quebec Act a fascinating one, and indeed have used it in a few timelines now, though not as the primary POD as usually we need something to happen before we see its absence.
 
Top