Why no explusion of the Quebecois in 1763?

Canada's biggest mistake in Quebec was not following up the 1755 explusion of the Acadians with a complete eviction of the Francophones from Canada after the 1763 Treaty of Paris (ceded all Canada to Britain). The alternative should have been a forced assimilation into the culture of the Empire. The British decision to leave a smoldering latent franco nationalism in Canada will be our undoing as a unified nation.

Many countries, such as Switzerland have distinct peoples with distinct ethnicities, languages and cultures, all living well together. However, in cases of conquest, most nations ensure that the dominant player is on tops and that those below know their place. Look at the USA for example, there are dozens of languages and cultures (same goes for a lot of Canada) and none are trying to go their own way and seperate from the Union.

In cases where the dominant nation has been unable or unwilling to crush and/or assimilate the conquered, eventually nationalist movements rise, with the eventual demands for seperation. The Quebecois are simply following the examples of the Scots, Basques, Irish, Poles and Norwegians; these nations never excepted the language, culture, politics and dominion of a greater power and thus began independence movements.

When Quebec finally seperates, we will have no one but the British and ourselves to blame. We could have put that flame out over a century ago if we wanted.

Why didn’t Britain expel the Quebecois following Conquest? Why didn’t they “force” the assimilation strategy? Easy answer: population. Only 1627 British troops and 500 British immigrants (ca 1766) lived in Quebec compared to the roughly 69,000 conquered French and 7,000 aboriginals. How exactly could Britain forcibly remove these people without committing a significant military contingent (this, of course, would be problematic as issue were developing in the 13 Colonies)?

Carleton, believed that he could win over French-Canadian converts (or, at the very least, control their assimilation) if he reinforced certain Quebecois linguistic, religious and cultural by maintaining their continued existence in the conquered territory (this would be fully realized in the Quebec Act of 1774 – Prime Minister Lord North saw its common sense protection of Quebec culture as a political necessity to peaceful governing). That also explained why he encouraged a continuation of the seigniorial system, as he believed it reinforced a hierarchical system of society (landed aristocracy – the subordination of tenants and government control) and this helped maintain order (see Bumstead).

When UEL expressed dissatisfaction with the Quebec Act (as did the 13 Colonies earlier), Britain enacted the Constitutional Act of 1791. This split the colonies into two linguistic political parts (Upper and Lower Canada) and while each had an elected assembly, the real power would still reside in the appointed governors. Again, political assimilation (a pragmatic approach) at the expense of cultural domination)

It wasn’t “forced assimilation”, but it did gradually assimilate them politically (which, unless military might was exercised, which historically would have proved problematic, was the best political route) and maintain general order (until 1837) in British North America.

For starters, each of the nationalities I used are relevant examples of peoples' seeking independence from what they percieve as outside power.

"Well, I think that having French is adding to Canada's identity and culture."

I agree, it makes Canada an interesting country to live in certainly. However, we have to remove our 21st century hindsight and look at what could have been done to remove the threat of national disintergration.

" The reason for that being no seperation in the States is because after the Civil War, they passed a law saying that the United States of America were indivisible."

Come on. That law would never have stopped the Civil War because the South didn't recognize the laws of the Union. The reason there is no seperation in the States is that the Union crushed the forces of the South and reintroduced Washington's control. This will likely not occur (from Ottawa) if Quebec seperates, regardless of any relevant legislation forbidding seperation.

"Thou must read the forum rules and not be a bigotted arsewipe"

I have, and you just broke "a) Provide any Content that may be... abusive, defamatory (or) libelous". Nothing in my post is of a bigotted nature, and arsewipe is a 16 year old's poor attempt at defamation. As a newbie, I request that you set an example for me by following the forum rules.

"Thou shall not make Supreme Lord and Master Mustang1 angry, for he will school your ass in any debate."

What, are you their prison b#tch? Let them speak for themselves. If I ever break a forum rule, I will gladly accept any deserved sanction by the moderators.

I read your reply, thanks for posting. An excellent summary of events of the time. I agree entirely with your summation. Now, history and current events show us that Britain's attempts to win over the francophone populations, while successfully insomuch as to provide a strong resistance to the American rebellion of 1776, have not been without risk to the future Canada.

If the will had existed back in London, the francophone populations could have been fully assimilated, much as the francophone populations in Louisana now are fully intergrated (while still maintaining some of their French cultural background) into greater USA.

I don't intend to come across as insensitive to modern day Quebecois. If I was franco-Canadian in Quebec I'd probably support independence today. I highly value the contribution French culture and language make to Canada. Here in New Brunswick, in Canada's only official bilingual province English and French cultures mix freely, with neither side trying to seperate to set up their own province or territory; perhaps this is a model for Canada.

Heres an article on the Quebec Act that should answer your question.

QUEBEC ACT set up a government for Canada and protected the rights of French Catholics.

Act of the British Parliament that vested the government of Quebec in a governor and council and preserved the French Civil Code and the Roman Catholic Church. The act was an attempt to deal with major questions that had arisen during the attempt to make the French colony of Canada a province of the British Empire in North America. Among these were whether an assembly should be summoned, when nearly all the inhabitants of the province of Quebec, being Roman Catholics, would, because of the Test Acts, be ineligible to be representatives; whether the practice of the Roman Catholic religion should be allowed to continue, and on what conditions; and whether French or English law was to be used in the courts of justice.

The act, declaring it inexpedient to call an assembly, put the power to legislate in the hands of the governor and his council. The practice of the Roman Catholic religion was allowed, and the church was authorized to continue to and oath of allegiance substituted so as to allow Roman Catholics to hold office. French civil law continued, but the criminal law was to be English. Because of these provisions the act has been called a generous and statesmanlike attempt to deal with the peculiar conditions of the province.

At the last moment additions were made to the bill by which the boundaries given the province by the Proclamation of 1763 were extended. This was done because no satisfactory means had been found to regulate Indian affairs and to govern the French settlers on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. It was decided, therefore, put the territory between the Ohio and the Mississippi under the governor of Quebec, and the boundaries of Quebec were extended southward to the junction of the Ohio and the Mississippi and northward to the height of land between the Great Lakes and the Hudson Bay.

This provision of the act, together with the recognition of the Roman Catholic religion, was seen to threaten the unity and security of British America by, in effect, reviving the old French Empire destroyed in 1763. The American colonists viewed the act as a measure of coercion. The act was thus a major cause of the American Revolution and provoked an invasion of Quebec by the armies of the revolting colonies in the winter of 1775-76. Its provisions., on the other hand, did little at the time to win French support of British rule in Quebec; and, expected for the clergy and seigneurs, most of the French remained neutral. The act eventually became important to French Canadians as the basis of their religious and legal rights.

http://www.harlingen.isd.tenet.edu/coakhist/amrev.html

In those provinces, tensions and troubles had been mounting at least since Britain's parliament had passed the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed on legal and other documents in order to raise revenue to meet the common costs of defending the empire in America. Yet colonists would condemn this act as "taxation without representation", since it had not been levied by their own elected assemblies; and they opposed the other imperial revenue measures that followed. In truth, with the threat of French empire removed, the old colonies no longer felt so dependent on the shield of British power. They became more confidently aware of their own American identity -- a new, national identity. Hence over the next decade, issues of imperial taxation, of the Proclamation line that had kept colonial settlement from expanding west, and lesser but inflaming rows that at times developed through sheer official stupidity, all moved the Thirteen Colonies on towards outright revolt.And it was in this ominous setting that Governor Guy Carleton reconsidered the whole question of Quebec within America.

http://www.canadianheritage.org/books/c ... f%20Quebec

Although I would have to disagree with Mustang1 on "population" being a reason for this as the British troops could easily have sent in more at any giving time. In context to this, information on the explusions of the Acadians would help greatly in piecing together reasons for not deporting Quebecois. I see nobody mentioned that.

Why no expulsion of them in 2005?

There may be some sarcasms here but it's unbelievable people can talk that it would be better for Canada to have expulsed the Frenchs. The Great Expulsion of the Acadians is a very dark part of the Canadian History.

Saying things like that shows me why separatists want to separate. :cry: