"What if??" A thread for people who like to speculate

[rmc_wannabe]

I don't really care where you are or what languages you or your neighbours might speak; I'm giving you a simple historical perspective. Had the French won in 1759 the expanding Americans - who had already taken Louisborg (1758) - would have taken French Québec, too, if not by 1763 then, certainly, by 1814. Québec would sound a lot like Florida, Louisiana and Texas: English.

This is a bit of a segway, but I was having this discussion with a colleague one night over beers:

What would Canada look like if the British weren't as lenient as they were with Quebec? Historically, Quebec was an odd exception in the Empire's history in that non-Protestants were allowed to swear allegiance and hold public office, the cultural laws of the people were allowed in private matters, and language rights were protected.

What if the British just said "No?" Would the American Revolutionaries have had an ally to the North? Would there have been a Revolution in the first place due to the RP of 1763 and Quebec Act (a major stinging point for the Americans) being non existent or not as aggravating? Perhaps the revolution would have started in Quebec?

Also, with the lack of a distinct and separate culture in our midst, would Canada have pushed for more independence/distance from the Crown? Would there even be a modern Separatist issue with Quebec, since they would have melted into the pot like the rest of the continent?

Any thoughts?

 

[Old Sweat]

Perhaps if the British had not been so lenient, there might have been a migration to Louisiana, which remained as a French possession, or to the colonies in the West Indies. While we think of Louisiana as a state, it once was quite a bit larger. Consider the places in the mid west with names like St Louis, Terre Haute and Des Moines. There probably would still have been a revolution because of issues like taxation withour representation and the attempt to limit the westward expansion of the population. Which way Quebec and Nova Scotia would have gone is an open question, not to mention PEI and Newfoundland?

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is a bit of a segway, but I was having this discussion with a colleague one night over beers:

What would Canada look like if the British weren't as lenient as they were with Quebec? Historically, Quebec was an odd exception in the Empire's history in that non-Protestants were allowed to swear allegiance and hold public office, the cultural laws of the people were allowed in private matters, and language rights were protected.

What if the British just said "No?" Would the American Revolutionaries have had an ally to the North? Would there have been a Revolution in the first place due to the RP of 1763 and Quebec Act (a major stinging point for the Americans) being non existent or not as aggravating? Perhaps the revolution would have started in Quebec?

Also, with the lack of a distinct and separate culture in our midst, would Canada have pushed for more independence/distance from the Crown? Would there even be a modern Separatist issue with Quebec, since they would have melted into the pot like the rest of the continent?

Any thoughts?

I can deal only with your last point.

Most historians (with whose work I am familiar, at least) agree that independence, such as it was in 1867, was not so much sought by the Canadians as it was imposed by the British, largely for economic reasons - they, the Brits, were tired of paying for colonial defence. Thus, Québec is less a catalyst for independence than it is a 'victim,' and Québec's culture of 'humiliation' begins in the run-up to 1867 when French speaking colonists begin to worry that there is an English plot to take away their linguistic, legal and political rights.

I think the Québec separatist movement is a result of the 20th century 'world' rather than anything particularly Canadian. There was, still is I suspect, a lot of Anglo disdain for French and for French Canadians as people, but my guess is that disdain was/is fuel for the fire rather than the fire starter.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Perhaps if the British had not been so lenient, there might have been a migration to Louisiana, which remained as a French possession, or to the colonies in the West Indies. While we think of Louisiana as a state, it once was quite a bit larger. Consider the places in the mid west with names like St Louis, Terre Haute and Des Moines. There probably would still have been a revolution because of issues like taxation withour representation and the attempt to limit the westward expansion of the population. Which way Quebec and Nova Scotia would have gone is an open question, not to mention PEI and Newfoundland?

From what I have read, its seems that all those taxes were merely the Deficit Reduction Action Plan of the day for the most part.

The Quebec Act seemed to sour your average American because of

a) a distinct hatred of the French (their former enemy now getting preferential treatment over loyal subjects who served the Crown to fight the French),

b) the expansion of Quebec's borders into the Ohio Valley, which was previously banned in the RP 1763 but also given in Royal Charter to companies in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and

c) it was viewed by some in the Thirteen colonies as an encroachment on religious beliefs by allow Catholicism in one of the colonies.

I wonder if the independence movement would have gone as far as it did if it hadn't reached the lower tiers of society in such a way. Merchants and the upper-class for the most part opposed the taxation. Frontiersmen and protestants really rallied to the cause after there was an affront to their interests.

As for the Louisiana migration, I wonder if they would have gone. King Louis pretty much left New France to the wolves, and if my memory serves me correctly, Louisiana became under Spanish control in the Treaty of Fontainebleau of 1763. they were already taking in quite a few Acadians after the Expulsion by the British, how many is too many? If anything, my guess is that New France would have become Newer France somewhere in Manitoba or Alberta.

I can deal only with your last point.

Most historians (with whose work I am familiar, at least) agree that independence, such as it was in 1867, was not so much sought by the Canadians as it was imposed by the British, largely for economic reasons - they, the Brits, were tired of paying for colonial defence.

Interesting, I've never seen that point of view on the BNA Act. I was always of the school of thought that it was the teenager getting frustrated rather than the parents telling us to spread our wings. I'll have to read into this a little more. "

Thus, Québec is less a catalyst for independence than it is a 'victim,' and Québec's culture of 'humiliation' begins in the run-up to 1867 when French speaking colonists begin to worry that there is an English plot to take away their linguistic, legal and political rights.

So does this mean if there were no linguistic, legal, or political rights in the first place (meaning, no Quebec Act 1774) would the separatist movement of the 20th Century have taken form? Its hard to fight oppression if the culture you had has been conquered, and eventually bred out through co-mingling.

 

[Old Sweat]

Confederation was by no means a done deal as late as 1866. It can be argued that the Fenians were the catalyst that finally drove the project. Interestingly, of the three invasions of 1866, it was the least well known one - the foray into Southwestern New Brunswick - that persuaded that colony to join the Confederation movement.

The government of the United Provinces of Canada and later the Dominion of Canada was obsessed with the Fenian threat, by the way. Sir John A Macdonald's papers in the Public Archives consist of some 17,000 items. Recently an historian who had examined them asked an audience for their estimates of how many of Sir John A's papers mentioned the Fenians. Guesses were in the nature of zero to five. The correct answer was 5,000.

What would have happened if the Fenian movement has not moved on Canada? It is quite possible Confederation would not have taken place.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Confederation was by no means a done deal as late as 1866. It can be argued that the Fenians were the catalyst that finally drove the project. Interestingly, of the three invasions of 1866, it was the least well known one - the foray into Southwestern New Brunswick - that persuaded that colony to join the Confederation movement.

The government of the United Provinces of Canada and later the Dominion of Canada was obsessed with the Fenian threat, by the way. Sir John A Macdonald's papers in the Public Archives consist of some 17,000 items. Recently an historian who had examined them asked an audience for their estimates of how many of Sir John A's papers mentioned the Fenians. Guesses were in the nature of zero to five. The correct answer was 5,000.

What would have happened if the Fenian movement has not moved on Canada? It is quite possible Confederation would not have taken place.

But, I would argue, we would still have had three or maybe even four dominions in what is now Canada: Ontario, Québec and one or more Atlantic dominions, because the British were hell bent on having us "spread our wings" and, more importantly, pay our own way. I strongly doubt, after the united Canada experiment that Upper Canada/Canada West/Ontario and Lower Canada/Canada East/Québec would have agreed to be one unitary dominion. But there might never have been a separatist movement if Québec had been an independent (as independent as Canada was in 1867) dominion in 1867.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

But, I would argue, we would still have had three or maybe even four dominions in what is now Canada: Ontario, Québec and one or more Atlantic dominions, because the British were hell bent on having us "spread our wings" and, more importantly, pay our own way. I strongly doubt, after the united Canada experiment that Upper Canada/Canada West/Ontario and Lower Canada/Canada East/Québec would have agreed to be one unitary dominion. But there might never have been a separatist movement if Québec had been an independent (as independent as Canada was in 1867) dominion in 1867.

Perhaps one of the follies of history? Would there be the same perceived political imbalance, and the separatist movements in the federation that is Canada (as we see it now) if Confederation happened post dominion status for Quebec? Perhaps having an independent Quebec, Ontario, Atlantic Provinces, etc. for a little while (50-60 years) would have worked out a lot of the kinks in today's Canada.. Mainly, the provinces would be in more of a position to realize "Man, this  is hard to do by yourself... maybe we are stronger as a group than by ourselves" etc.  It seemingly did for Newfoundland; pride in one's roots, but loyalty to the collective.

 

[Old Sweat]

Perhaps one of the follies of history? Would there be the same perceived political imbalance, and the separatist movements in the federation that is Canada (as we see it now) if Confederation happened post dominion status for Quebec? Perhaps having an independent Quebec, Ontario, Atlantic Provinces, etc. for a little while (50-60 years) would have worked out a lot of the kinks in today's Canada.. Mainly, the provinces would be in more of a position to realize "Man, this  is hard to do by yourself... maybe we are stronger as a group than by ourselves" etc.  It seemingly did for Newfoundland; pride in one's roots, but loyalty to the collective.

It is also quite possible that one by one some or all of the (self-governing or not) colonies of British North America could have slipped into the American union. There also is the issue of what would have happened to Rupert's Land, the vast territory administered by the HBC. It could have been transferred to one of the dominions, or it could have slipped into American control. The second Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Alexander MacKenzie, suggested to the Governor General that rather than going to the expense of forming the NWMP, the US Army be invited to pacify the Canadian prairies.

Without Atlantic Canada, which was very, very prosperous back then, I could not see Canada having the financial werwithal to absorb Rupert's Land and to start to construct the CPR. That also meant that BC may not have joined the Dominion. Without the CPR to provide access across the top of Lake Superior to the West, a Canada stretching from sea to sea was not a viable option.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

"The dramatic increase in the number of people speaking French at home in Florida is largely attributable to a recent influx of Haitian immigrants, but French-Canadians still account for a large part of Florida's French fact."

"Now Haitian immigrants, whose French Creole is grouped with French for the purposes of the U.S. census, easily outnumber new arrivals from the north.  Dr. Jedwab said that 17,000 Haitians immigrated to Florida in 2001 alone. "

National Post
"French language thriving...in Florida"
October 15, 2003

Didn't realize there were so many Haitians in Florida. Appreciate the clarification.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

This is a bit of a segway, but I was having this discussion with a colleague one night over beers:

What would Canada look like if the British weren't as lenient as they were with Quebec? Historically, Quebec was an odd exception in the Empire's history in that non-Protestants were allowed to swear allegiance and hold public office, the cultural laws of the people were allowed in private matters, and language rights were protected.

What if the British just said "No?" Would the American Revolutionaries have had an ally to the North? Would there have been a Revolution in the first place due to the RP of 1763 and Quebec Act (a major stinging point for the Americans) being non existent or not as aggravating? Perhaps the revolution would have started in Quebec?

Also, with the lack of a distinct and separate culture in our midst, would Canada have pushed for more independence/distance from the Crown? Would there even be a modern Separatist issue with Quebec, since they would have melted into the pot like the rest of the continent?

Any thoughts?

Look at what happened in Nova Scotia. The British were outraged at what they saw as a betrayal by the French after the British forces had surrendered at Fort William Henry. After Fort William Henry, the British and Americans took a hardline stance regarding the fight against the French. Therefore, when Louisbourg fell, all the French colonists in Nova Scotia were deported in retaliation. I would think the same thing could have happened to the French in Quebec if Wolfe hadn't been so generous.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Look at what happened in Nova Scotia. The British were outraged at what they saw as a betrayal by the French after the British forces had surrendered at Fort William Henry. After Fort William Henry, the British and Americans took a hardline stance regarding the fight against the French. Therefore, when Louisbourg fell, all the French colonists in Nova Scotia were deported in retaliation. I would think the same thing could have happened to the French in Quebec if Wolfe hadn't been so generous.

Wolfe was dead before the fat lady sang. You bring up a good point. Perhaps if he was still alive he would have pushed for a more hardline stance on the Quebecios like he did in Acadia. He sure as hell was prepared to raze Quebec City in his tactics.

 

[Old Sweat]

Wolfe was dead before the fat lady sang. You bring up a good point. Perhaps if he was still alive he would have pushed for a more hardline stance on the Quebecios like he did in Acadia. He sure as hell was prepared to raze Quebec City in his tactics.

While the siege was underway Rangers from New England were burning and pillaging along the lower St Lawrence, so there is some merit in the point.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

While the siege was underway Rangers from New England were burning and pillaging along the lower St Lawrence, so there is some merit in the point.

Oh I was in agreement, I was just pointing out that Wolfe died before the end of the campaign and therefore had no hand in the policy making after the war. I think its no secret Wolfe had a passion for killing, destroying and pillaging the French.

 

[RangerRay]

If the eastern provinces had not joined together in Confederation, it would be interesting to know what would have happened to the Crown Colony of British Columbia.  Before the Fraser and Cariboo gold rushes of the 1850's, what is now the British Columbia mainland (i.e. New Caledonia) was British territory administered by the HBC.  It was not until boatloads of American miners started to arrive in Victoria and New Westminster to head up the Fraser Canyon that Governor Douglas of the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island unilaterally asserted British authority on the Mainland territory.  This led to the creation of the Crown Colony of British Columbia and the eventual merger of Vancouver Island and British Columbia colonies.

Now, around the time that BC joined Confederation in the late 1860's - early 1870's, there were three camps: those who wanted the US to annex BC, those who wanted BC to join Confederation, and those who wanted BC to remain a British crown colony.  London wanted to be rid of BC and it's huge debt.  BC eventually joined Confederation because Canada promised to build a railway and take on the colony's debts, as well as pressure from London to do so.  So had Confederation of the eastern provinces never happened, would BC have become a self-governing Dominion, or would it have been annexed by the US?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Wolfe was dead before the fat lady sang. You bring up a good point. Perhaps if he was still alive he would have pushed for a more hardline stance on the Quebecios like he did in Acadia. He sure as hell was prepared to raze Quebec City in his tactics.

Yes, the British and Americans forces burned and pillaged the Quebec countryside, but that was a pretty standard tactic in those days and was intended to force the French forces besieged in Q.C. to either surrender or to come out and do battle. And it was my understanding was that it was Wolfe who had drawn up the generous provisions that preserved the Quebecers language/religious/political institutions

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Yes, the British and Americans forces burned and pillaged the Quebec countryside, but that was a pretty standard tactic in those days and was intended to force the French forces besieged in Q.C. to either surrender or to come out and do battle. And it was my understanding was that it was Wolfe who had drawn up the generous provisions that preserved the Quebecers language/religious/political institutions

From Wolfe's letters to Amherst in 1759:"If, by accident in the river, by the enemy’s resistance, by sickness or slaughter in the army, or, from any other cause, we find that Quebec is not likely to fall into our hands (persevering however to the last moment), I propose to set the town on fire with shells, to destroy the harvest, houses and cattle, both above and below, to send off as many Canadians as possible to Europe and to leave famine and desolation behind me; but we must teach these scoundrels to make war in a more gentleman like manner."

The Articles for Caputulation for Quebec were drafted and agreed upon by Admiral Sir Charles Saunders and General George Townshend . It wasn't until Jean-Baptiste-Nicolas-Roch de Ramezay, King's Lieutenant for Quebec placed his terms:the honours of war, the protection of the civilians and their properties, the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion that Quebec had any hope in hell to retain their way of life.

Wolfe's previous statment doesn't marry up to these terms and my guess is that if he was alive to see the Articles he'd have refused them.

 

[Chispa]

Chispa:
The point is this: the Americans would not have been as generous as the British were in guaranteeing religious and language rights for Quebec.  Just as there are parts of the US in which one can find languages spoken other than English, ALL official public discourse would be in english.  That's the point that Mr. Campbell is making.

His point was clear, however his simple perspective on history as dates given???

The British were generous? After they murdered, burned, raped, ect., according to French Québec Historians, ect. Also see "Chateau Clique" which L.J. Papineau Jr., of the "Patriotes Party" complained vigorously with an assembly with no power, since any legislation passed was revoked by the Big Wigs if they developed a stiff upper lip. And the Powers given to Les Frances aka Canadien, was just smoke and mirrors.

The Acadians were given by Spain and the USA Guaranteed religious and language rights ect., In Louisiana, Texas, Florida, ect. The US would of giving “Les Canadien” those same rights or would of never attacked them Under French Rule. Why? History clearly showed, if Spain wouldn't of helped France and the American colonists, the British would have surely defeated the Independence movement of the Thirteen Colonies. Its Historically noted by the USA. General Bernardo De Galvez of Spain were providing the American colonists along the entire length of the Mississippi River from the Gulf of Mexico, as far north as Canada with food, medicine, guns/cannons, gunpowder, uniforms and money etc.

“ALL official public discourse would be in English”. Therefore ALL official public discourse were not in English, maybe Louisiana only starting in 1804. I believe only 12 counties and completely English by 1812.

As for Canadians having our Independence from the British in 1867 ect., the umbilical cord hasn't been served Yet. Canadian money has British all over it, remember there's three sides to a coin, not two. When we become Canadians or join CF. we have to swear our allegiance to the Queen of England, no mention of Canada, which I fined appalling ect., in fact I refused.  Make no mistake, my alliance is to Canada and to the Brave women and men that serve the Canadian Corps.

The unjustified -270 points or point system the site has are trivial.  P.S. this or all open forums are for friendly discussion and shouldn't be taken seriously, since we all have different opinions. Mutual respect ect., should be the rule of thumb, even if we don't share the same point of view or especially getting the History wrong or because not properly informed.

However I do thank you for the heads-up, and your civil response.

I'm giving you a simple historical perspective. Had the French won in 1759 the expanding Americans - who had already taken Louisborg (1758) - would have taken French Québec, too, if not by 1763 then, certainly, by 1814. Québec would sound a lot like Florida, Louisiana and Texas: English.

TEXAS
French Texas 1684–1689= French
Spanish Texas 1690–1821= Spanish
Mexican Texas 1821–1836= Spanish
Republic of Texas 1836-1845=English

Mexico controlled the territory until 1836 when Texas won its independence, and became an independent Republic. However it only joined the USA in 1845, as the “28th State”.


Florida became an organized territory of the United States only on March 30, 1822.


Louisiana remained under Spain's control until a transfer of power to France in 1803. Then came the "Louisiana Purchase" 1804, however certain areas still remained under Spain's control until 1812. It’s to be noted, “The Louisiana Purchase” was illegal, described pointedly by, historian Henry Adams, who wrote: "The sale of Louisiana to the United States was trebly invalid; if it were French property, Bonaparte could not constitutionally alienate it without the consent of the Chambers; if it were “Spanish Property”, he could not alienate it at all; if Spain had a right of reclamation, his sale was worthless." according to Walter Nugent. Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansionism. pp. 65–68.

Today 5.5m live in Louisiana around  200,000 households speak French, which is taught in schools as a second language. Source; Louisiana Sensuous.

This is Fact French Haitians all over Florida in this day and age.

 

[RangerRay]

When we become Canadians or join CF. we have to swear our allegiance to the Queen of England, no mention of Canada, which I fined appalling ect., .

ff topic:

Funny...my oath of allegiance scroll read "...I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, QUEEN OF CANADA, etc., etc..." (my emphasis added).

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Ex-SHAD]

Now here's an interesting "What If":

What if the Government of Canada, had against both international opinion at the time, and the "Official" opinion of members of the Commonwealth, openly support Ian Smith and his Rhodesian Government?

 

[medicineman]

Now here's an interesting "What If":

What if the Government of Canada, had against both international opinion at the time, and the "Official" opinion of members of the Commonwealth, openly support Ian Smith and his Rhodesian Government?

We'd be short 1 large province and gained two smaller one's in St Pierre and Miquelon?

MM