I’ve noticed that whenever Americans speak of the war of independence, they tend to say things like: “The 13 British colonies revolted…”
Now, weren’t there really sixteen British colonies? That is, three of the colonies refused to go along with the revolutionary war: Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Newfoundland.
To be more accurate, shouldn’t we all say something like: “When 13 of 16 British colonies revolted…”? I think to not do so is to obscure a not so unimportant part of North American history. What do you think?
Not in 1776. The massive colonization of the entire globe began later on, during the 19[sup]th[/sup] century, as a consequence of the hyperdynamics of industrial revolution.
In the 18[sup]th[/sup] century, Britain already had a few overseas possessions, especially on the Indian coasts (the hinterland was not colonized yet, and it was not administrated by the Crown but by the East India Company) and in America, and they were just about exploring down under, but AFAIK, there was no imperial network of colonies over the globe in 1776.
I don’t know the things about Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but I think Quebec, due to its history under French rule until 1756 or so, had a special status. It was not completely “britanized”, with French being the most important language and a rather francophile population.
Of course, the other two territories now belong to Canada, but I’m not sure whether one can already speak about something called “Canada” in that time. Maybe yes, because, AFAIK; the Stamp Act was not valid in those colonies. In any case, they didn’t send deputies to the Continental Congress, that’s supposedly the crucial point.
The page points out that these colonies had French, not British roots. Furthermore, Quebec and Isle St. Jean were very recent British acquisitions (1759 and 1758 respectively.) However, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia had been under exclusively British rule somewhat longer–since 1713.
The page also summarizes the American campaigns in Canada during the Revolution.
Another aspect to the question is the use of the word “colony.” As of 1776, the British had only made a very few tentative moves toward “colonizing” their recently acquired French possessions–and those were mostly efforts to get British North Americans to move North rather than recruiting from Sussex or York. The Quebec Act of 1775 was a deliberate effort to co-opt the French of Lower Canada to prevent them from joining their southern neighbors in agitating against the Crown, but it still did little to encourage British immigration.
And, of course, if we look at the title of the document being celebrated today we find:
**IN CONGRESS JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration **of the 13 united States of America
(Bolding used to approximate separate fonts in the original: JPEG
British control in India in 1776 was still indirect, but they had begun to establish their empire there.
The British also already had theoretical territorial claims in Australia, although actual settlement hadn’t yet begun.
The “Thirteen” Colonies are of course a reference to the Colonies who banded together to declare independence; if the Nova Scotians had thrown in their lot with us, we’d all be talking about the “Fourteen Colonies”, and triskaidekaphobes would probably be a lot happier with the dollar bill.
The loss of the Thirteen Colonies represented a major chunk of their empire in North America, but economically the Caribbean islands were probably even more important; their empire in India was already growing; and the wars of the American and French Revolutions and the Napoleonic conflicts led to other acquisitions in Africa and Asia at the expense of other European colonial powers. The 19th Century of course saw even vaster territories taken over by the British and other European imperialists in Asia and especially Africa.
i also note, for completeness, that there * was * some agitation in canada-- plenty of french canadians joined the continental army when it invaded quebec at the start of the war, but lack of funds made them disillusioned with the patriot cause. also, some local nova scotians took over a fort near the current nova scotia/new brunswick border (though its name is escaping me) before the redcoats drove them out. the nova scotians even asked washington for help, but it was logistically impossible…
Nah. We’d have taken it away from them in '98 (provided we hadn’t already arranged for its “liberation” in the manner of Texas sometime prior to the U.S. Civil War. The Spanish never had a strong hold on Florida and during the uprisings throughout South and Central America, were sure to have grabbed it. (We kind of did, anyway.)
I think its population was more francophone than francophile…
All three “Canadian” colonies had governors; Nova Scotia had an elected lower house of assembly since 1758 and an appointed legislative council, while Quebec had only an appointed council and no assembly until 1791. Newfoundland’s had a military governor, and no legislature until the 1830s.
The Americans tried to get the three northern colonies to join in the Boston Tea Party, and there were a lot of sympathizers in the expatriate New Englanders who formed a good chunk of NS’s population (NS at the time included what is now NB). However, a few burnt barns in Quebec, and a lot of burnt or plundered fishing stations in Newfoundland, were poor strategies for getting the other three colonies on the rebellious side.
Not meaning to hijack the thread, but does it bother anyone else when current residents of Great Britain refer to the Americans as “You folks in the Colonies”. I mean, jeez, its been 225 years already!
“The colonies”? That’s hardly a regular expression. The only time I have heard it directed at someone from the States, that person was being obnoxious about coming from “God’s Country” and he deserved the rebuke.
Now, if you are having that phrase directed to you on a regular basis. . . .
