Hi. Some North American British colonies had rebelled against colonial rule, later forming the USA, and some didn't, becoming Canada. I have heard a small amount on this already (something about dependency on the UK for life, about population count, settlement patterns, policies etc.) but why was the boundary between the 2 exactly as it was? Why didn't Prince Edward Island randomly rebel, or Georgia randomly not? Why wasn't the line more to the south or north? Why didn't Bermuda or the Bahamas join, I think they could have hypothetically? Why did Quebec, big on the whole French identity thing, not rebel (even as an independent, not necessarily joining the USA)? Why wasn't there some funky thing like a north and a south New York state? The way it turned out was a quite possible one but I don't think the only one.
The particulars of loyalist-rebel division in North America
- Thread starter Lover of chocolate
- Start date
Loyalist (American Revolution) - Wikipedia
In the Thirteen Colonies there where Loyalists including the son Benjamin Franklin who was the Loyalist governor of New Jersey and recruited Loyalists for the British Army.
Per Woodrow Wilson who did research on the question of Loyalists he estimated that twenty five thousand Loyalists aka Tories enlisted in the British Army during the ARW.
At least per the above source fifteen to twenty percent of the colonial population supported the Crown. One unique Tory regiment was the " Ethiopian Regiment" which was a misnomer as its soldiers where not from Ethiopia but rather recruited by Lord Dunsmore who promised freedom for slaves that enlisted in the British Army plus food and shelter for the soldiers families.
Leftyhunter
It didn't make sense for wealthy plantation owners in the British Caribbean to support the Colonial Rebels vs maintaining their lucrative export of sugar to Great Britain. The Colonial Rebels did have a small navy but it was used for commerce raiding and hit and run commando raids aling the British coast. Most if the Colonial Americans where either neutral or supported the Colonial Rebels.
Major Benedict Arnold did mount an expedition in the dead of winter to seize Quebec but it was a one sided debacle for Arnold's men.
Leftyhunter
Joined Apr 2010
1,682 Posts | 218+
evergreen state, USA
Some/many loyalists in the South fled to the Bahamas, which was a loyalist bastion. But don't ask me for references, ha ha. I just read it here and there. I have a few distant relatives in my tree who moved to Canada. Some in later generations returned to the U.S.
Joined Jul 2011
11,340 Posts | 2,849+
Canada at that time was mostly French speaking. The Quebec Act, which went into effect 11 days after fighting broke out made French the official religion of Quebec and established the Catholic Church, making everyone in Quebec pay tithes to it. It created a government in Quebec of locals appointed by the king, with no elections. It also made what is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin part of Quebec.
This might have been the most important cause of the rebellion. The rebellion broke out in Puritan and anti-Catholic New England. Some of the founding fathers, including Washington and Franklin, had investments in claims to western lands, which would be invalid. There were many ordinary or poor people who had an interest in settling the area, which would now to part of Quebec.
They had abolished slavery on those British islands, but the islands were often over 90% black with a few plantation owners. Probably, neither than white elite or black majority saw common interests with what became the US.
This might have been the most important cause of the rebellion. The rebellion broke out in Puritan and anti-Catholic New England. Some of the founding fathers, including Washington and Franklin, had investments in claims to western lands, which would be invalid. There were many ordinary or poor people who had an interest in settling the area, which would now to part of Quebec.
They had abolished slavery on those British islands, but the islands were often over 90% black with a few plantation owners. Probably, neither than white elite or black majority saw common interests with what became the US.
Joined Nov 2020
2,538 Posts | 2,580+
Canuckistan
I guess it still needs repeating: Canada and the US are not exactly the same peoples. We share a lot of common ground, but we're not the same.
As much as the Americans might like it to be, the revolution wasn't one of the common people. It was chiefly driven by wealthy landowners. The reason, say, that PEI or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick didn't join in a revolt was that there wasn't as many wealthy landowners. Canada, at the time, was still largely a fur factory with some ancillary support systems. This, added with lower populations and, as @betgo mentioned, the Puritan strain of Christianity, which was also absent from Upper and Lower Canada and the maritimes, and there just wasn't as much of a driver for rebellion.
As much as the Americans might like it to be, the revolution wasn't one of the common people. It was chiefly driven by wealthy landowners. The reason, say, that PEI or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick didn't join in a revolt was that there wasn't as many wealthy landowners. Canada, at the time, was still largely a fur factory with some ancillary support systems. This, added with lower populations and, as @betgo mentioned, the Puritan strain of Christianity, which was also absent from Upper and Lower Canada and the maritimes, and there just wasn't as much of a driver for rebellion.
Hmm, what were the economies of Vermont, New Hampshire, and the then Massachusetts' Maine about at this time?
Joined Nov 2020
2,538 Posts | 2,580+
Canuckistan
Not fur. Those areas would've been largely depleted by the late 18th century.
Fishing, textiles, shipbuilding.
Joined Jul 2011
11,340 Posts | 2,849+
Not sure the American Revolution was by landowners. Most of the leaders were landowners or merchants. That was the way things were done in the 18th century before the French Revolution. There was popular support for the Revolution, and the wealthy tended to be more loyalist than the colonists as a whole.
At that time Canada was mostly French speaking. English Canada sort of started with loyalist refugees. The Quebec Act gave the French Canadians everything they wanted. It made French the official language, established the Catholic Church, and gave huge territory to Quebec. All of those, particularly the last, were causes of the American Revolution. So no way Quebec joins.
As mentioned, the Americans the people in Quebec had contact with were Puritan New Englanders, and the French Canadians may have thought they had more in common with the English.
At that time Canada was mostly French speaking. English Canada sort of started with loyalist refugees. The Quebec Act gave the French Canadians everything they wanted. It made French the official language, established the Catholic Church, and gave huge territory to Quebec. All of those, particularly the last, were causes of the American Revolution. So no way Quebec joins.
As mentioned, the Americans the people in Quebec had contact with were Puritan New Englanders, and the French Canadians may have thought they had more in common with the English.
Joined Oct 2020
4,688 Posts | 2,406+
Peabody, MA
I think that is too strong a claim. Many colonists lived there lives with little interference from "Big Brother", although there were certainly "little brothers", the local gov't, the church etc. And they and their ancestors had fought the Indians and the French, on their own, and with the British. Especially after the French lost, and the British "tightened up" on the colonists, many colonists "developed an attitude". The point about New Hampshire, Maine, VT, Western MA and Central MA, etc. is well taken in my opinion.
Ultimately the British didn't have the manpower to enforce their will, as events showed. And if it made sense to raise taxes, etc, after 1763, why not do it earlier?
Are you suggesting the revolution would have succeeded with revolutionary Americans alone?
Joined Oct 2020
4,688 Posts | 2,406+
Peabody, MA
Last edited:
Not sure I understand your question. The French and others were vital, I don't know if eventually the British would have grown tired and withdrawn, or more probably, years later, reached a settlement of some sort. But then the colonists who moved west would have wanted independence from the effete easterners etc. In my view the British had their chance in 1763. Giving some more autonomy, not raising taxes etc, letting Franklin and Washington etc. be full British Gentlemen or officers or whatever, etc. But too arrogant and not a good enough understanding of geography to do that.
What do you mean by non revolutionary Americans?
Absolutely vital, as were the Spanish and Dutch aswell. The British were fighting the biggest powers of the time across the world and an insurrection in NA at the same time. It's an ignored fact that the largest engagment of the Revolutionary war was the siege of Gibralter. There is no way on earth the revolution succeeds without all that.
There where plenty in NA that did not support revolution and even more that were appathetic.
Was this loyalist movement in the 'southern' (used here as opposed to Canada, and includes later 'northern' USA) states strong enough, and supported enough, that there was a strong plausibility of Britain keeping more than it could do in real life?Like keeping Vermont in Canada, or maybe Georgia on the other end? Sorry I'm just not from the continent, this might be common knowledge there.
Joined Oct 2020
4,688 Posts | 2,406+
Peabody, MA
Last edited:
Yes, I know that the British were fighting elsewhere - but that was their choice. They wanted to control the world - not much sense fighting their richest colony. Although again, not sure they understood that, maybe more interested in islands growing sugar, etc.
And they did reach agreement with the French in Quebec - again, why not with the richer colony of your own people to the south? This way, they would be set up to control North America eventually maybe.
And they did reach agreement with the French in Quebec - again, why not with the richer colony of your own people to the south? This way, they would be set up to control North America eventually maybe.
Joined Oct 2020
4,688 Posts | 2,406+
Peabody, MA
Last edited:
Vermont wasn't even a state or colony until after the revolution - CT and NH had claims that became an issue during the revolution, and after the revolution NY almost got the Lake Champlain Islands. Vermont was a long way from the ocean.
founders.archives.gov
vtdigger.org
Founders Online: Continental Congress Motion on Vermont, 5 December 1782
Continental Congress Motion on Vermont, 5 December 1782
Then Again: In Vermont, Revolutionary War loyalties divided families, communities - VTDigger
It could be geography that explains why Vermont's first governor, Thomas Chittenden, was a revolution supporter, while his brother-in-law, Sylvanus Evarts, supported the Crown.
vtdigger.org
Yeah I said it as a random item in that area.Vermont wasn't even a state or colony until after the revolution - CT and NH had claims that became an issue during the revolution, and after the revolution NY almost got the Lake Champlain Islands. Vermont was a long way from the ocean.
Founders Online: Continental Congress Motion on Vermont, 5 December 1782
Continental Congress Motion on Vermont, 5 December 1782
Then Again: In Vermont, Revolutionary War loyalties divided families, communities - VTDigger
It could be geography that explains why Vermont's first governor, Thomas Chittenden, was a revolution supporter, while his brother-in-law, Sylvanus Evarts, supported the Crown.
No because of the estimated twenty five thousand Tory soldiers many where from the Southern colonies and more likely then not want to be based close to home. Even with British regulars, Loyalist regular army and milita, American Indian allies plus Germanic soldiers aka Hessians the British Army in the Thirteen Colonies is spread thin and can't control much of the Thirteen Colonies.
Leftyhunter
Not so sure about choice, the west european countries saw a chance for revenge and took it. It didn't turn out that well for them though, left with bankrupted economies and the loss of real money spinning colonies. In France there is a direct line from the financial ruin of this war and Revolution. It wasn't all about control of the world either, the UK at the time was much more about trade and creating markets. Denying that control to your rivals was much more important.
The NA colonies were far from the richest the UK held, as you alluded the Sugar Islands, spice islands and also India were far more important at the time. The loss of NA was not a great loss financially, if anything it had been a huge financial drain hence the taxes to try and recoup some of that loss.
Another forgoten fact is that there was at least initially a great deal sympathy in the UK for the colonist's demands. In particular democratic representation. IMHO. had the revolution failed NA was populous enough to be self governing and as happened later with Canada, Australia and New Zealand it would have become a dominion but much earlier. Would be an interesting counterfactual!
Joined Nov 2020
2,538 Posts | 2,580+
Canuckistan
People have to remember a few things about the times:
- During the 18th century, the British were at war with the French for a total of almost half of the century. The British had a lot on their plate.
- The British army was always the second son to the Royal Navy. Not to disparage the army, but it was the navy that secured the empire. The British could always find the resources to put together another fleet if they needed it. Another army? Not so much.
- Even in the 18th century, the British were stretched around the world. The British Raj started in the mid 18th century.
- Upper and Lower Canada were, for whatever reason, firmly Loyalist.
- The British were free to fight in the southern colonies, but it was pretty much a "fight with what you have" war. The fact that they employed mercenaries shows their priorities were elsewhere.
- While it might be a blow to the American ego, the southern colonies weren't the crown jewel of the empire. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if the fur trade from the ramshackle Upper and Lower Canada contributed more to the empires purse at the time.
- So, while the British might fight for the colonies, it was a fight that had strict constraints, resource wise. Once those resources were drained it was "ok, we're done. ta ta".
- And since the newly independent colonies had their own issues to resolve, Upper and Lower Canada were not really threatened, and as such, stayed British.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-