Subject: (American) Quebec Libre! Date: 25 Jun 2001 23:06:28 GMT From: congyoglas@aol.comgentboss (President Chester A. Arthur) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if (American) Quebec Libre! Howdy. With FaT on three weeks or so of vacation, here's proof that I can do more than just a malevolent late 20th century. Oddly enough, the very first American attack against Canada (in 1775) probably stood the best chance of succeeding. The two American columns (they attacked miles apart but simultaneously) had two very able leaders under Richard Montgomery and Benedict Arnold; and succeeded in taking Montreal before Montgomery was killed during the attack on Quebec and the whole operation fell apart. There were later attacks or planned attacks nearly every year of the Revolutionary War, but all were failures of varying degrees of embaressment. Let's play around a bit: Give the invasion of Canada an overall commander, someone who doesn't actually lead in the field. Philip Schuyler is a good bet; he was slated to lead one of the invasion wings before being replaced by Montgomery for health reasons, and was a superb staff officer and organizer. Also, replace tempestous Benedict Arnold with his equally (or even more so) able fellow New Englander Nathanael Greene, someone who could work well as a subordinate commander. (and keep Montgomery and Greene from being killed in action) With that combination of forces, it's not implausible to imagine a successful attack on Quebec in early 1775. Benjamin Franklin was in line to be governor, and it's plausible, too, to imagine that he could keep anti-Catholic sentiment muted enough that the French Canadians don't rise up and drive the Protestants into the sea. If Quebec stays in American hands by the Treaty of Paris...well, let's also throw in a few French naval victories in the Caribbean, enough that the British would rather make the same trade the French did at the end of the Seven Years War. Britain keeps, of course, Nova Scotia and the naval bases and timbers there. Thoughts? President Chester A. Arthur, the anti-Rutherford Hayes Subject: Re: (American) Quebec Libre! Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 02:51:21 GMT From: Jamie McDonell Organization: @Home Network Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 "President Chester A. Arthur" wrote: > > (American) Quebec Libre! > Oddly enough, the very first American attack against Canada (in 1775) probably > stood the best chance of succeeding. The two American columns (they attacked > miles apart but simultaneously) had two very able leaders under Richard > Montgomery and Benedict Arnold; and succeeded in taking Montreal before > Montgomery was killed during the attack on Quebec and the whole operation fell > apart. There were later attacks or planned attacks nearly every year of the > Revolutionary War, but all were failures of varying degrees of embaressment. > Let's play around a bit: Playing around is going to have to include Burgoyne. You can bet he'd still show up at Quebec in the Spring of '76. So now you've got a British force outside Québec. How big an American force inside Québec? A population mildly supportive of the British (Murray and Carleton had done their jobs well). The odds are much better for Burgoyne than ever they were for Wolfe, and much worse for Schuyler than ever they were for the Marquis de Montcalm. You can bet that Burgoyne would take Québec and the rest of Canada, but it should put paid to his invasion of New York in '77. > Give the invasion of Canada an overall commander, someone who doesn't actually > lead in the field. Philip Schuyler is a good bet; he was slated to lead one of > the invasion wings before being replaced by Montgomery for health reasons, and > was a superb staff officer and organizer. Also, replace tempestous Benedict > Arnold with his equally (or even more so) able fellow New Englander Nathanael > Greene, someone who could work well as a subordinate commander. (and keep > Montgomery and Greene from being killed in action) You still have to contend with the Highland Emigrants (not yet the 84th of Foot) and Québec militia at Fort St. John. In OTL, they held up the invasion for 55 days. Was Schuyler good at seiges? Greene, even with five years of experience under his belt, wasn't very (see his performance at Ninety-Six). > With that combination of forces, it's not implausible to imagine a successful > attack on Quebec in early 1775. Benjamin Franklin was in line to be governor, > and it's plausible, too, to imagine that he could keep anti-Catholic sentiment > muted enough that the French Canadians don't rise up and drive the Protestants > into the sea. If Quebec stays in American hands by the Treaty of Paris... well, > let's also throw in a few French naval victories in the Caribbean, enough that > the British would rather make the same trade the French did at the end of the > Seven Years War. The secret, of course, is that an albeit temporary victory at Québec be used to drag France into the war, because while not an utter impossibility, a Saratoga campaign becomes much less likely. Subject: Re: (American) Quebec Libre! Date: 26 Jun 2001 03:02:27 GMT From: congyoglas@aol.comgentboss (President Chester A. Arthur) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: Re: (American) Quebec Libre! >From: Jamie McDonell seumasm@home.com >Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2001 9:51 PM >Message-id: <3B37F9B2.EF2484DD@home.com> > > > Yeah, the weakness of the whole proposition is America keeping Canada once the war gets going, what with the whole "large, professional, highly-skilled British army with near total command of the sea fighting in a reasonably loyal population." thing. > >The secret, of course, is that an albeit temporary victory at Québec be >used to drag France into the war, because while not an utter >impossibility, a Saratoga campaign becomes much less likely. That's probably the only way to make it fly; have French naval intervention start early and in a big way. (Heh, if Arnold goes south in Greene's place and still winds up a traitor, maybe we have a US that goes from Quebec to Maryland?) Greene vs. Burgoyne...ouch. Greene would probably go after retreating into the countryside and luring Gentleman Johnny after him; the problem there is that Burgoyne would just then occupy Quebec and probably Montreal as well, and say "Hah." President Chester A. Arthur, the anti-Rutherford Hayes Subject: Re: (American) Quebec Libre! Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:48:01 GMT From: Jamie McDonell Organization: @Home Network Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "President Chester A. Arthur" wrote: > > Yeah, the weakness of the whole proposition is America keeping Canada once the > war gets going, what with the whole "large, professional, highly-skilled > British army with near total command of the sea fighting in a reasonably loyal > population." thing. Well, not that large an army, but otherwise, yeah. > >The secret, of course, is that an albeit temporary victory at Québec be > >used to drag France into the war, because while not an utter > >impossibility, a Saratoga campaign becomes much less likely. > That's probably the only way to make it fly; have French naval intervention > start early and in a big way. (Heh, if Arnold goes south in Greene's place and > still winds up a traitor, maybe we have a US that goes from Quebec to > Maryland?) The problem with that, of course, is the fact that the French would want Canada (Québec and Ontario) back. On the other hand, they'd almost certainly be willing to give up any claims to the Ohio. The thing is, until the DoI in July, the matter is just a revolt in the colonies. So the French don't declare until July, unless you're postulating that an initial victory at Québec would lead to an earlier DoI (almost an absolute necessity for earlier French involvement). > Greene vs. Burgoyne... ouch. Greene would probably go after retreating into the > countryside and luring Gentleman Johnny after him; the problem there is that > Burgoyne would just then occupy Quebec and probably Montreal as well, and say > "Hah." Possession of a safe haven for Loyalists is not to be underestimated. With Montréal in the hands of the Crown, there is sure to be a Burning of the Valleys as in OTL, denying the Continentals of much-needed grain for their armies for the remainder of the war. Subject: Re: (American) Quebec Libre! Date: 26 Jun 2001 10:43:27 GMT From: congyoglas@aol.comgentboss (President Chester A. Arthur) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: Re: (American) Quebec Libre! >From: Jamie McDonell seumasm@home.com >Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2001 10:48 PM >Message-id: <3B3806FB.2EA3BED8@home.com> > > > >"President Chester A. Arthur" wrote: > >> > >> Yeah, the weakness of the whole proposition is America keeping Canada >once the >> war gets going, what with the whole "large, professional, highly-skilled >> British army with near total command of the sea fighting in a reasonably >loyal >> population." thing. > >Well, not that large an army, but otherwise, yeah. > Darn British and their skilled craftsmen and merchants! >> >The secret, of course, is that an albeit temporary victory at Québec >be >> >used to drag France into the war, because while not an utter >> >impossibility, a Saratoga campaign becomes much less likely. > >> That's probably the only way to make it fly; have French naval intervention >> start early and in a big way. (Heh, if Arnold goes south in Greene's place >and >> still winds up a traitor, maybe we have a US that goes from Quebec to >> Maryland?) > >The problem with that, of course, is the fact that the French would want >Canada (Québec and Ontario) back. On the other hand, they'd almost >certainly be willing to give up any claims to the Ohio. > France revoked any claims to Canada in OTL, but that was with it safely in British hands... >The thing is, until the DoI in July, the matter is just a revolt in the >colonies. So the French don't declare until July, unless you're >postulating that an initial victory at Québec would lead to an earlier >DoI (almost an absolute necessity for earlier French involvement). > True... >> Greene vs. Burgoyne... ouch. Greene would probably go after retreating >into the >> countryside and luring Gentleman Johnny after him; the problem there is >that >> Burgoyne would just then occupy Quebec and probably Montreal as well, >and say >> "Hah." > >Possession of a safe haven for Loyalists is not to be underestimated. >With Montréal in the hands of the Crown, there is sure to be a Burning >of the Valleys as in OTL, denying the Continentals of much-needed grain >for their armies for the remainder of the war. > > Like all war, it'll be no fun for anyone, that's for sure... President Chester A. Arthur, the anti-Rutherford Hayes Subject: Re: (American) Quebec Libre! Date: 26 Jun 2001 13:21:33 GMT From: ratbastryd@aol.com (Ratbastryd) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> I dunno... if one goes for the rampaging charioteer theory of the Indo-Europeans (ala S.M. Stirling), then they enjoyed war, methinks. Peter Berard Subject: Re: (American) Quebec Libre! Date: 28 Jun 2001 13:04:10 GMT From: srogerscat@cs.com (Steven Rogers) Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Jamie McDonell seumasm@home.com writes: >So now you've got a British force outside Québec. How big an American >force inside Québec? A population mildly supportive of the British >(Murray and Carleton had done their jobs well). Honest and effective administration, the bane of revolutionaries everywhere. What if the pre-AWI governers of Canada had been just as annoying and irritating as the governers further south? Would that do it? I still see the French getting Quebec back as a consolation prize. When the French Revolution comes along the effects would be.... whoooo, boy. How in the hell does the fledgling USA stay out of that mess? It might well have been swept back into the British Empire. Steve Yoicks! And Away! Subject: Re: (American) Quebec Libre! Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 06:22:51 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Steven Rogers wrote: > > >Jamie McDonell seumasm@home.com writes: > > > > >So now you've got a British force outside Québec. How big an American > >force inside Québec? A population mildly supportive of the British > >(Murray and Carleton had done their jobs well). > > Honest and effective administration, the bane of revolutionaries everywhere. > What if the pre-AWI governers of Canada had been just as annoying and > irritating as the governers further south? Would that do it? Would require a different pre-AWI history northwards, I think; Canada was only freshly conquered and what governance there was applied mostly to French and natives; English settlement had barely begun, and did not really take off _until_ after the AWI; even then it really didn't get going until after the Rebellions of '37. So the role of government in the former New France was quite different from England; hence also the personalities and policies of the governors and their hierarchies; and, as noted below, the British incurred the favour of the Church, who sort of ruled for them given the collapse of the regime of the gouverneurs and seigneurs. I still see the > French getting Quebec back as a consolation prize. When the French Revolution > comes along the effects would be.... whoooo, boy. How in the hell does the > fledgling USA stay out of that mess? It might well have been swept back into > the British Empire. I'm not sure that Revolutionary France would want Catholic Quebec back so readily; Quebec was die-hard Catholic in those days, encouraged to be so in fact by the British more than the French regime (so that the population was docile to the Church, which was the effectively appropriated agent of British rule, willingly or not). Sure, in a divergent ending to the Napoleonic Wars we might see a Franco-American partition of British North America, _but_..... As everyone knows, I don't know my early central Canadian history well but I think I'm more or less on the mark here. If you're looking for a POD with similar government problems in what's become Canada as what's become the US, I think British rule and settlement in the former New France would be helped out by being POD'd a few decades earlier..... MC