Inspired by a quote war i currently am having in the BtS forum...

So anyway, here's the "alternate" history...

What if, During the War of 1812, The Americans won, and conquered the british colonies in Canada, and they became states of Modern day America? How would this effect modern history?

And before the Americans/Canadians come and claim that "they did win the war" No you guys didn't... It was a stalemate where both sides (the americans and canadians/british) claim to have won.

Well America 'won' by not being defeated. In the majority of other aspects the war was won by the British and the colonies. If they had of completly won and captured Canada then i imagine they're small military and large areas they would have to govern militarily (Canadians didnt want them there) would have been their downfall and the British or someone else would have taken full advantage of this.

On a not being invaded by a foreigner path, then the civil war may not have happened, with all them predominantly non slavery states being added then the south would have been outvoted on any slavery issue and would have been less likely to seceede against an even stronger north

And before the Americans/Canadians come and claim that "they did win the war" No you guys didn't... It was a stalemate where both sides (the americans and canadians/british) claim to have won.

That was a win to us, the Brits had an large well equipped organized military, we had a couple farmers and squirrel hunters who had outdated muskets who were willing to fight for a good cause. The Brits had a large very powerful navy, we had some fishing boats and a small Navy. Yes the White House was burnt, yes we didn't beat the Brits out of Canada, yes no American soldier even took the fight to the U.K., but just because we survived it was a win. Many people said the revolution was a lucky fluke, and had the French Navy not bottled up Cornwallis' men then we would have lost that so this proved that although we weren't a world power we could survive. It wasn't a win in the sense of we got money or land or anything but we showed the world who we are and that it wasn't a fluke so it wasn't a win when you look at both sides agreed to a white peace after 2 years but to us it was a huge win.

But the new states (rven just 2 new states would represent 20% of the new total) would also not be particularly happy to be part of the Union and would probably support states rights and decentralization (more important than slavery as a cause of the Civil War) and may want to secede. So their opposition to slavery may not be a great benefit.

The biggest changes would come from politics. What happens if Macdonald (or any other Canadian) went to Washington and won the 1960 election? Or change any election?

The biggest changes would come from politics. What happens if Macdonald (or any other Canadian) went to Washington and won the 1960 election? Or change any election?

That would have been very very interesting, and it would have changed the world greatly if he would have beat JFK

Hmmm, that just might have been a typo :blush:
But still, what happens if as a result of many minor changes, someone other than JFK is elected and keeps the US out of Vietnam (who knows over 150 years a lot could change)?

I honestly don't see how it could happen. Canada's just too far flung for an early America to govern effectively.

I honestly don't see how it could happen. Canada's just too far flung for an early America to govern effectively.

We probably would have just done with it what we did with like Kentucky and other frontiers and just let people settle them and not even worry about governing them in till they are big enough to worry about.

We probably would have just done with it what we did with like Kentucky and other frontiers and just let people settle them and not even worry about governing them in till they are big enough to worry about.

Thing is, these frontiers were already settled ... with the French, who would have balked at being in the US just as they balked at being in Confederation in the 1830s. And with an Anglo/Scot population that was still hot with Loyalist sentiment, comprised of a large proportion of decommissioned soldiers who received land for their service. 19th century Canada wasn't so firmly ordered and tightly governed for no reason at all, it was necessary to govern it heavily. Without governing the place, it would have broken away from any external power, and from each other.

Anyway, the US never really stood much chance of capturing British North America, maybe seize a little territory, but outright conquest was out of the question. The defences at Halifax (Fort Louisburg), Quebec City, and Kingston were more or less impregnable to the kind of forces the US had, and without seizing these points, control of the interior would have been impossible. Plus the US would have had to be able to overpower the British Navy on the high seas in order to wrest control of the Maritimes and Newfoundland away, and that just wasn't going to happen. They couldn't even overpower the British on the Great Lakes, at least, not after the monstrous HMS St. Lawrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_St._Lawrence_(1814)) left drydocks. Bit of overkill, that thing was.

The best chance would be a resurgent Napoleon taking even more of Britain's attention, forcing negotiations in North America (Britain would always put Europe first).

Though a few points:
Louisbourg was on Cape Breton Island and was razed after the British captured it during the Seven Years' War.
And the great defenses: Fort Henry, La Citadelle, the Halifax Citadel were built after the war.

As for the Navy: Upper and Lower Canada New Brunswick and mainland Nova Scotia are reachable by land, and account for pretty much all important areas.

Granted the only chance for the US to get a decisive victory was right off the bat, but their militia based armies failed miserably in that regard.

double post!

Louisbourg was on Cape Breton Island and was razed after the British captured it during the Seven Years' War.


Indeed, you are correct.

And the great defenses: Fort Henry, La Citadelle, the Halifax Citadel were built after the war.

Hmmm ... yes and no. Kingston's defences were erected before and during the war, though the present fortress dates from 1837. Actually Kingston had been fortified since 1673 (starting with Fort Frontenac) except for a short period between 1758 and 1783.

The Citadel of Montreal was built in 1690, expanded in 1723, and actually larger and more complete in 1812 than it was later, since the British demolished a portion of it in 1823.

Citadel Hill in Halifax was fortified before Halifax was even settled, in 1740, and there were actually five other forts defending the harbour in 1812, though the present-day version of the fortress dates from 1856 when it was rebuilt.

The Citadel of Quebec was present since 1701, and vastly expanded in 1745, though again, upgraded in the 1820s.

As for the Navy: Upper and Lower Canada New Brunswick and mainland Nova Scotia are reachable by land, and account for pretty much all important areas.

Reachable, yes, but unsupportable without control of the water, except perhaps Lower Canada and New Brunswick. Upper Canada demanded control of the Great Lakes, and Nova Scotia can be reached only by a narrow chokepoint and could easily be cut off from the mainland by a naval landing (especially with such readily available staging grounds as PEI and Newfoundland).

Forts: while all had forts at their locations, none (except perhaps Montreal, which I know nothing about, and was far less important than the other 3) were near as powerful as the current ones.

The US had control of the great lakes at times. If the Americans got Kingston, Lake Ontario was theirs, and the rest of upper Canada would follow.
True Nova Scotia was pretty safe and the US had little hope on the high seas.

And if the British ever shifted their focus onto North America, the US didn't have any chance.

But IF Detroit didn't surrender, the results of the war could be very different.
If Detroit had resisted Brock and Tecumseh, any attack would have been a disaster, and the best forces in Lower Canada are gone, and perhaps the native allies as well.
Or IF the American militia hadn't refused to fight in battles such as Queenston Heights.
One or both of those, could vastly change the outcome of the early war, while Napoleon was kicking butt and the British war machine got into motion in North America, the Canadas could easily have fallen.

I'm not talking about wether it could happen or not, let's skip that and go to After the war, with Canada being part of America. What would happen afterwords?

To general of a question to really say with any degree of certainty.
As said before, the biggest immediate impact would be the build-up to the civil war.
Canada would likely be anti-slavery, yet pro states rights. It would also depend on immigration and how many states they would have.

In Canada, it would likely lead to far fewer French speakers (and more of their assimilation), and more successfully assimilated natives. Just compare the two and Frenc would be even more outnumbered by English speakers.

I'm not talking about wether it could happen or not, let's skip that and go to After the war, with Canada being part of America. What would happen afterwords?

Probably revolt, though not necessarily immediately. US occupation is possibly the one thing that would've united the French and the loyalists.

Most of Upper Canada was settled either by UEL families or Scots from disbanded British units (rewarded land in the colonies for service), with a very high proportion of Ulster Scots ...

The central facet of Canadian history has been the difficulty keeping everything together (kind of like Russia), and before Confederation, the tendency towards disaggregation was much stronger. Even now, Canada is one of the world's most decentralized federal states. The US, if it had managed to maintain control in Canada, would have found itself facing a much more difficult challenge during the Civil War, possibly a war on two fronts; Upper and Lower Canada and New Brunswick (although perhaps not Nova Scotia) would have asserted themselves strongly and would have chafed at the new and much more centralized vision of federal government which emerged under Lincoln. Additionally, it was a model of government which was extremely ill-suited to governance in Canada.

I would imagine the US would be waaay overstretched ... and consequently would probably lose control of Canada, the West, and the South as a result. The Canadian territories themselves would probably fragment too. North America would probably be a patchwork quilt of different countries, and the Civil War probably wouldn't have been the last war among them.

So a more divided up North America then?

Maybe someone could make a map of this new divided up america? (i can't due to my inexperience with the lands history pre-1900)

That was a win to us, the Brits had an large well equipped organized military, we had a couple farmers and squirrel hunters who had outdated muskets who were willing to fight for a good cause. The Brits had a large very powerful navy, we had some fishing boats and a small Navy. Yes the White House was burnt, yes we didn't beat the Brits out of Canada, yes no American soldier even took the fight to the U.K., but just because we survived it was a win. Many people said the revolution was a lucky fluke, and had the French Navy not bottled up Cornwallis' men then we would have lost that so this proved that although we weren't a world power we could survive. It wasn't a win in the sense of we got money or land or anything but we showed the world who we are and that it wasn't a fluke so it wasn't a win when you look at both sides agreed to a white peace after 2 years but to us it was a huge win.

So you won because your country wasn't completely destroyed?
Oh my! Well done! I'll break out the schampers!

Take your patriotic crap elsewhere.

So you won because your country wasn't completely destroyed?
Oh my! Well done! I'll break out the schampers!

Take your patriotic crap elsewhere.

How was what he said patriotic, it was the truth :s the truth that is supported by the majority of eminent American Historians. It was a win for the Americans because they weren't destroyed whilst for England it was a draw because it was a war they didnt particularly want but had managed to defend their assets.

How was what he said patriotic, it was the truth :s the truth that is supported by the majority of eminent American Historians. It was a win for the Americans because they weren't destroyed whilst for England it was a draw because it was a war they didnt particularly want but had managed to defend their assets.

I don't recall reading anywhere that Britain wanted to destroy America in the 1812 war. I rather thought our initial aims were to maintain the maritime policies as part of the endeavour to undermine Napoleon whilst retaining our hold on our possessions in the region. Since we retained the embargo policy until the end of the war and the impressment policy was removed before it began on our own decision I'd say we were pretty sucessful in those. These policies would have gone anyway upon the defeat of France, but to take its place on the international stage America was obliged to force the issue, to show that she was not prepared to be dictated to in that way.

I can therefore see the arguments for America claiming a victory, but if America won because she achieved her aims then you could argue that so did Britain for achieving ours. Napoleon was defeated, we did retain our maritime policies and we held off America without seriously damaging the main conflict with France. You can't view the war from the British perspective by isolating it to just the Americas.

Its for that reason that I conclude that either both sides won or it was a draw but either way it was a costly mess by the time the war ended.

How was what he said patriotic, it was the truth :s the truth that is supported by the majority of eminent American Historians. It was a win for the Americans because they weren't destroyed whilst for England it was a draw because it was a war they didnt particularly want but had managed to defend their assets.

Just highlighted whats wrong with your post.

America wanted to stop impressment.
They didn't.
American anger at British limits on neutral trade.
Nothing changed.

So how can an eminent historian claim that America won (which inferes that the British lost, as you can't have two winners!) when they achieved neither of their goals and the British carried on with the same maritime policies?

Thats why I said it was patriotic crap.

I believe the American argument holds that they could have simply waited for the British to finish the war with France and obtain the end of impressment and embargos that way, but in doing so would show themselves subservient to Britain. This would lead to them not being taken seriously on the world stage since they were still dancing to Britain's tune. By forcing the issue, and fighting the British to a standstill they proved something to the world. Some historians hold that the invasion of Canada was borne not out of a desire for conquest (although some undoubtedly wanted that) but a desire to use any territory gained as leverage to obtain concessions on the maritime issues.

I don't recall reading anywhere that Britain wanted to destroy America in the 1812 war. I rather thought our initial aims were to maintain the maritime policies as part of the endeavour to undermine Napoleon whilst retaining our hold on our possessions in the region. Since we retained the embargo policy until the end of the war and the impressment policy was removed before it began on our own decision I'd say we were pretty sucessful in those. These policies would have gone anyway upon the defeat of France, but to take its place on the international stage America was obliged to force the issue, to show that she was not prepared to be dictated to in that way.

I can therefore see the arguments for America claiming a victory, but if America won because she achieved her aims then you could argue that so did Britain for achieving ours. Napoleon was defeated, we did retain our maritime policies and we held off America without seriously damaging the main conflict with France. You can't view the war from the British perspective by isolating it to just the Americas.

Its for that reason that I conclude that either both sides won or it was a draw but either way it was a costly mess by the time the war ended.
__________________


I agree and perhaps i should have expressed myself better, by the destruction of America i mean if both the naval skirmishers and the defence in Canada had gone the British way there would have probably been enough supporters within England itself to force the issue more, perhaps not to the destruction of America but definatly to kneecapping it for awhile at least.

Just highlighted whats wrong with your post.

America wanted to stop impressment.
They didn't.
American anger at British limits on neutral trade.
Nothing changed.

So how can an eminent historian claim that America won (which inferes that the British lost, as you can't have two winners!) when they achieved neither of their goals and the British carried on with the same maritime policies?

Thats why I said it was patriotic crap.

Do you mean how impressment ceased after Napoleon? No it doesn't, your British look at the FA cup- when one of the big teams end up drawing with say Crewe, for Crewe that is a victory, that's their final and they've managed to get a replay, for the other side its a needless draw but still a draw. Perhaps oversimplifying things but still expresses my point.

As Privatehudson says, the war introduced America to the world stage and increased a sense of national unity which had perhaps been slightly lacking since the Revolution itself, so in that way how can it not be seen as a victory? Whilst Britain maintained her colonies but lost face slightly by being given the merrygo round by an upstart nation, hardly a loss but not a victory.

Finally perhaps i should have overemphasised my use of a fullstop and added a paragraph, how i could be wrong in suggesting that the majority of historians suggest that the war of 1812 was a victory for the Americans.

I agree and perhaps i should have expressed myself better, by the destruction of America i mean if both the naval skirmishers and the defence in Canada had gone the British way there would have probably been enough supporters within England itself to force the issue more, perhaps not to the destruction of America but definatly to kneecapping it for awhile at least.

That was another underlying motive for some in Britain. They feared the rise of America as a maritime power and wanted to undermine her so that Britain would retain her supremacy. Given that during the war the blockade of the USA caused the US economy to just about grind to a halt and the US spent more on the war than the British did it seems that we had some degree of success in that field.

Do you mean how impressment ceased after Napoleon? No it doesn't, your British look at the FA cup- when one of the big teams end up drawing with say Crewe, for Crewe that is a victory, that's their final and they've managed to get a replay, for the other side its a needless draw but still a draw. Perhaps oversimplifying things but still expresses my point.

An interesting analogy, but to take it further Britain was sending our reserves to play Crewe because our first team was busy playing Barcelona. ;)

As Privatehudson says, the war introduced America to the world stage and increased a sense of national unity which had perhaps been slightly lacking since the Revolution itself, so in that way how can it not be seen as a victory? Whilst Britain maintained her colonies but lost face slightly by being given the merrygo round by an upstart nation, hardly a loss but not a victory.

The point is not whether we beat you soundly but whether we achieved what we set out to do. If you take the 1812 war in isolation this would be retaining our policies and territory whilst not putting too great a strain on our committments elsewhere. If you take it as part of a larger conflict (as I would argue is essential) our victory came when Napoleon abdicated for good. If we had struggled in Canada and withdrawn enough troops from the Peninsula to upset our allies or cause defeat for our armies that would have been another matter.

The Americans and British drew and the Indians lost.

You can't say America won because they survived.

The US started the war against a superior force, who viewed the war as a sideshow, and was putting the majority of its resources against france as it had for the better part of two decades. And in the end, the Americans gained none of their goals through war. Best case scenario is a draw. How can you win if you do not gain any of your objectives? It was clearly an aggressive war, so defending their territory cannot be claimed as a pre-war objective. And by starting the war, it clearly indicates they expected to be able to win (quickly occupy Canada which was very lightly defended, and use it was a bargaining chip, probably).
If the British had started the war, then by maintaining the status quo would be a clear victory.

The British, maintained their naval policies until Napoleon was defeated (at which point they no longer mattered, and Napoleon was far more important than the upstart Americans), and successfully defended against an aggressor. Yes they invaded the US and failed, but it was still a defensive war. Yes they did not gain a total victory, but in no way were they defeated, so worst case scenario it was a draw.

Compare it to the Korean War, I doubt anyone would say that the North won. And that war ended up pretty much status quo.

The point is not whether we beat you soundly but whether we achieved what we set out to do. If you take the 1812 war in isolation this would be retaining our policies and territory whilst not putting too great a strain on our committments elsewhere. If you take it as part of a larger conflict (as I would argue is essential) our victory came when Napoleon abdicated for good. If we had struggled in Canada and withdrawn enough troops from the Peninsula to upset our allies or cause defeat for our armies that would have been another matter.

The English fighting the English now?

The English fighting the English now?

I'm not sure what you mean, especially since the more accurate term for 1812 would be British. I'm merely suggesting that the understated aim of the war in the Americas was (until Boney's first abdication) to not drain too many resources from troops that would have been sent to the peninsula campaign.

I don't recall reading anywhere that Britain wanted to destroy America in the 1812 war. I rather thought our initial aims were to maintain the maritime policies as part of the endeavour to undermine Napoleon whilst retaining our hold on our possessions in the region.

Actually the British objective was to "punish" the Americans for trading with Napoleon, for wilfully hiding Royal Navy deserters (Americans were NOT pressed into service, but US ships were boarded and searched for Royal Navy deserters), and of course for having the audacity to declare war.

They landed and burned the capitol down, so I'd say it qualifies ...

(Americans were NOT pressed into service, but US ships were boarded and searched for Royal Navy deserters),
America did take in Royal Navy deserters, that's true, but the Brits also conveniently didn't recognize US naturalization, so any US citizen who had been born British (i.e. almost everyone) was liable to be (im)pressed into service if found on an American sailing ship that had been boarded by the Royal Navy. Eventually, the Royal Navy stopped hiding behind a shade of legality and started searching American ships within sight of shore. Please, try to tell me how repeated violations of national waters to basically kidnap sailors isn't a Bad Thing. :p

America did take in Royal Navy deserters, that's true, but the Brits also conveniently didn't recognize US naturalization, so any US citizen who had been born British (i.e. almost everyone) was liable to be (im)pressed into service if found on an American sailing ship that had been boarded by the Royal Navy. Eventually, the Royal Navy stopped hiding behind a shade of legality and started searching American ships within sight of shore. Please, try to tell me how repeated violations of national waters to basically kidnap sailors isn't a Bad Thing. :p

All true, I didn't say it was a Good Thing, but then again, neither is hiding huge numbers of deserters during war-time, or trading with the enemy, especially when it happens to be a farcical, megalomaniacal dictator bent on world conquest.

I'm not sure what you mean, especially since the more accurate term for 1812 would be British. I'm merely suggesting that the understated aim of the war in the Americas was (until Boney's first abdication) to not drain too many resources from troops that would have been sent to the peninsula campaign.

The bolding of the 'you' didnt have quite the emphasis i wanted, i'm not American- I'm English.

The bolding of the 'you' didnt have quite the emphasis i wanted, i'm not American- I'm English.

Ah, never mind minunderstandings happen. The point stands however if you merely edit the comment to say "the Americans" instead.

Actually the British objective was to "punish" the Americans for trading with Napoleon, for wilfully hiding Royal Navy deserters (Americans were NOT pressed into service, but US ships were boarded and searched for Royal Navy deserters), and of course for having the audacity to declare war.

None of that indicates a desire to destroy America (which is what I was arguing against) but merely to punish in relation to violating the maritime policies that were being pursued at the time.

True, they had no urge to destroy the US or even re-incorporate it into the empire. They just wanted to wreak a little havoc on the Americans for getting in the way of the Napoleonic conflict.

It can't be called anything but a win for the British ... they certainly met their objective. It was, basically, a raid writ large. The US objectives (which, contrary to popular opinion, did not include seizing British North America) were to end impressment and, more importantly, to defend the ability of the US merchant marine to trade freely with Napoleon. They failed on both accounts. Impressment didn't end and the merchant marine was effectively prevented from trading with France until the Napoleonic conflict was over.

This has drifted offtopic, and the way i see it (and the way i was taught in Canada) is that History was written by the winners, and that since it was a draw, both sides claim it was a victory for them and a defeat for the other.

Back on topic, if the Americans succeeded in capturing Canada, what will happen afterwords?

Honestly? I think Canada would of sided with Abe in the Civil War, as long as they got what they wanted. Made a deal to be less central in government and what not. I really don't see Canada siding with the South and I don't see Canada going against the North. Heck they mighta just said "You boys have fun down there" and ignored it altogether

Except the Union army wouldn't have let that happen. And Canadians would have been drafted. And Canada wouldn't be given a deal for a less central government, that was the KEY issue in the civil war. Slavery was really just an example of that, and propaganda (there was slavery in the North after the war ended).
The idea would be that Canada would be less siding with the South, than opposing the North for its own gains. There may be a cry to Mother Britannia for help, and she may be in the mood for revenge.

Also, keep in mind the people in power would likely have been young men when they were annexed. So that would still be a fresh memory (not like they were conquered generations previously).

Back on topic, if the Americans succeeded in capturing Canada, what will happen afterwords?

The implications of complete control of the Great Lakes are interesting from a socioeconomic perspective. The Mississippi Basin would no longer be quite so integral to the nation and the Midwest (the economic grouping Ontario, Quebec and any seized part of Prince Rupert's land would probably end up in) would be a larger and stronger force.

Secondly if they got all of the BNA interior, would the northern states be so keen to support the annexation of Texas and attacks on Mexico? After all there is now plenty of room for Free-soil states, why put blood and treasure to winning more slave territory? You might see a marginalized south much earlier with a very different mechanism of resolving the conflict.

Finally Britain could rather annoyed at this seizure of their territory which could have considerable effects on the massive British investment patterns in 19th century America, which had a tremendous hand in the rapid economic growth of the states.

Honestly? I think Canada would of sided with Abe in the Civil War, as long as they got what they wanted. Made a deal to be less central in government and what not. I really don't see Canada siding with the South and I don't see Canada going against the North. Heck they mighta just said "You boys have fun down there" and ignored it altogether

I think you're looking at things from a too modern perspective (and perhaps a Western Canadian one?)

Loyalist sentiment was extremely high ... more or less all of Ontario (Upper Canada) and New Brunswick had been devoid of any signifigant British settlement before the Revolution, and afterwards, they were settled first by Loyalists and second by certain classes thought to be violently pro-Imperial, such as Ulster Scots, military families, etc. The British settled these areas much differently than they settled the Thirteen Colonies or than Canada settled the West, because they had to be cautious about American and French agitation (the French were still a majority of the population). Particularly in Eastern Ontario, Anglophone Quebec, or southern New Brunswick, a trace of that legacy remained right through the 20th century.

And of course, neutrality simply wasn't an option. Even New York didn't want to fight, they had great riots over conscription. There is zero chance that Canada, especially the French - again, the majority of the population - would have been able to swing any deal with Lincoln for a less centralized gov't. Part of the reason (far from the only reason, but definately a very important one) the war was fought was to establish the total and utter supremacy of the federal government in the US, and to quash secessionist aspirations once and for all. How would this go over with the Canadiens? Not well at all!

Would Canada have sided with the South? I don't think "sided" is the right word - Canada did not like slavery at all and had long been the ultimate destination of the underground railroad. But, with the North distracted, it is almost certain that the French, and possibly the loyalists of NB and Upper Canada, would be taking the opportunity to assert themselves.

Nova Scotia, as always, would be a wild card. There would be great opportunities for privateering either way, but it would probably be more feasible and lucrative to go after Union shipping.

Finally there's the British element. They would almost certainly still hold Newfoundland which would provide a ready forward base to support any attempts by loyalists to assert independance and rejoin the Empire. The British were notably sympathetic to the South and sold them the majority of their arms, warships, and even assorted military gear like footwear and uniforms. They could easily outfit any number of loyalist rebels. Britain, too, would probably take the opportunity to assert herself. Had America won the War of 1812, it would be almost certain Britain would seek another round when they didn't have to worry about Napoleon, and when the empire was at its all-time apex of military, financial, and technological power under Victoria. It was standard Imperial policy in the 19th century to avenge any losses regardless of cost or relative importance of the loss, the thinking being that to allow one to go unpunished would be to encourage others all across the empire. Plus, they wouldn't have much to lose without any colonies on the mainland ... all they would need to do is commit HMS Warrior or HMS Black Prince, either one of which could probably sink the Union fleet singlehanded, and the balance would be tipped against the North.

The British settled these areas much differently than they settled the Thirteen Colonies or than Canada settled the West, because they had to be cautious about American and French agitation
Not to mention those people just happened to be available (UELs from the US weren't likely to go to Britain) and many troops serving in Canada just never left.

But like as you said, these areas were recently settled by people strongly opposed to the republic, and still quite sparsely populated. There is a good chance to see much migration, with Canadians moving to either coast, or further inland to whatever the British still controlled, while many Americans would likely settle in Canada (there was actually a quite a bit of this, anyways (and not just loyalists, as who cares about the government if you can get good cheap land).

And yes, I know I am presenting both sides of the argument in different posts.

the French
Um. I realize that I haven't had the background in Canadian history that you have, but didn't French/Quebecois nationalism not exist in any powerful form until the Quiet Revolution?

Um. I realize that I haven't had the background in Canadian history that you have, but didn't French/Quebecois nationalism not exist in any powerful form until the Quiet Revolution?

The Quiet Revolution has more to do with the secularization of Quebec and the socialization of the economy. The power of the Catholic church was restricted within the government and education, public corporations were set up to build the province's natural-resources economy in energy and mining, etc. It was actually a project of the federalist Liberal party. The modern form of Quebec nationalism predates the Quiet Revolution - goes back at least to the Depression, with the birth of the Union Nationale party.

But, Quebec nationalism in its present form, ie as identity politics, is a 20th century phenomenon - that's true. For the most part, the French in the 1800s - or, at least, the later half of the 1800s - were tolerant of the English and there was no real division on the basis of language itself (both independance groups like the Patriotes and Fils de Liberte, and pro-Imperial groups like the Doric Club, were made up of French and English members). The British allowed the Catholic church to retain its role in the government and public institutions of Lower Quebec, and even allowed the French to retain their Civil Code of law in place of the English common-law system. Which exists to the present day. Quebec nationalism in the 1800s was not the ethnic nationalism it is today - it was a civic and cultural nationalism, which included both Anglophones and Francophones.

However, before the mid-1800s, there were strong independance movements ... the Patriote movement for instance, which gave birth to militias known as the Fils de Liberte and an armed insurrection in 1837. This was largely over the issue of representation by population and other issues of civic/cultural nationalism.

Gives you a little indication of what Quebec in America would be like in the 1800s ... unhappy with US policy of assimilation, unhappy with losing the Civil Code (I doubt the US would become a bijural nation just for Quebec), unhappy with the separation of church and state, and certainly very unhappy with being such a bit player at the federal level. Canada has had to make a very long list of concessions in order to keep Quebec.