Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)

Merge?
That is a good idea, they are both part of the same campaign and together they might make a good artical. I've added a bit to this one here so I say go for it. Marc29th 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merger seems reasonable, but Arnold expedition is probably the better name. It can be used in text without piping; and it may avoid PoV protests. Septentrionalis 05:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Arnold expedition article says that that title refers to the Eastern advance on Quebec City up the Kennebec River. hte campaign box refers to them collectively as te "Canada Campaign". Mike McGregor (Can) 08:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not bad, unless we are going to have to dab from Amherst's or Wolfe's Canada campaign.Septentrionalis 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Touchet... : ) Mike McGregor (Can) 08:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, merger is a good idea, under the name Invasion of Canada (1775) (not Arnold expedition, which does not apply to Montgomery's expedition, which was the main thrust). If, at some time in the future, this article gets too long, the Arnold expedition can be broken out again as a "daughter" article. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 09:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I now think the scope of this article should be expanded to include everything in the campaignbox, which covers both the American invasion of 1775 and Carleton's counter-invasion of 1776. Basically, then, the Canadian theater of the war up until the Saratoga campaign. The reason for this is I believe every campaignbox (which cover both campaigns and theaters) needs its own article, in order to keep the main article (American Revolutionary War) at a reasonable length. Carleton's counter-offensive is important enough to cover at length, and this should be the place to do it. This holds true whether or not Arnold's expedition is merged into this article. It can always be a "daughter" article, with a brief summary here. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Shameless Plug
The Canadian Military History Task Force of the Wikiproject Military History is looking for participants...

Green lumber may be an unsourced claim
The accounts I've seen about the Arnold Expedition, in print and online, were clear on the poor construction of the bateaux, which were unrowable, weighed about 400 pounds apiece, and were a horror to get over the portages. However, all of the online references I've seen that excuse the quality of the bateaux, on the grounds that Colburn was obliged to use green lumber at that time of year, trace back to a single source: a descendant of Colburn's who's been singlemindedly championing his cause. What I haven't seen is him citing any source(s) for that assertion. The Arnold Expedition wasn't heavily documented, and I'm not aware of any contemporary account that discusses the particular circumstances of Colburn's design decisions.

Also, the claim seems a little odd on the face of it. What does season have to do with green lumber? Trees are green in season, but that's not the same "green" that's meant when talking about lumber. Newly cut lumber, a.k.a. green lumber, is green in any season.

If sustained, this objection also applies to the entry on Major Reuben Colburn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.217.252 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Battle of Vaudreuil
I'm beginning to wonder about this alleged battle. I cannot find it anywhere except the Canadian campaign template which accompanies this article. Is it a misconception, a hoax, or a non-notable obscure skirmish? PatGallacher 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like it's a name given to the ambush of Henry Sherburne's force after Butterfiled surrendered at the Cedars. It's briefly described in the Battle of the Cedars:


 * "On May 20, Sherburne landed at Quinze Chiens [another name for the place called Vaudreuil, according to Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution] about 10 miles (15 km) from the Cedars. Not realizing that Butterfield had already surrendered, he marched his troops into a British ambush. They fought for about 40 minutes before they were forced to surrender."


 * If I'm correct, it looks like the Battle of Vaudreuil can be redirected into the Battle of the Cedars because it's covered there, and removed from the campaignbox. I think the two actions are usually discussed as a unit, like our Cedars article does. The Vaudreuil battle article can always be broken out again if someone comes up with the secondary sources needed to write a full article about it. Although the battle usually merits only a brief, one-sentence mention (if that) in books on the war, perhaps a decent article could be written on it someday. —Kevin Myers 05:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada did not existe in 1775
How can they invade a place that is called Canada in 1775 ? when in reality it is officially called : The Province of Quebec Since the Quebec act of 1774 ?

Since there is no Canada anymore and the province of Quebec is just another colony their is no such thing as an invasion It's the american revolution in one of the british colony

To pass this as a separate country of Canada is simply untrue And the British never called themselves canadien at that time

Campain in the Province of Quebec in 1775 is a possible name for the article Of course If your not interested in acuracy any version can do But this misleading title is simply wrong It's not because all book get it wrong that wikipedia should follow

Where is Canada in this map ? :

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/art-73497/The-Province-of-Quebec-1774

Their is no such things as Canada in 1775 Canada was invaded and his name removed by the British by the Quebec Act of 1774.

'''--The protagonists in this war were the Americans (or Patriots), the Loyalists, the Canadians and the Natives nations. "Canadians" referred to the French-speaking population of the Province of Quebec of that time. The Canadians did not perceive themselves as "French", hence the need for a name of their own. The British -including those who would later call themselves (English) Canadians- were Loyalists. Please be respectful of historiography; this is the norm not only in informal writings, but in history books. --''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.42.8 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Canada" was still used informally to describe the area despite the Quebec Act. French Canadians at the time still referred to themselves as "Canadiens" and thought of their land as "Canada." It was only in post-Confederation times that Quebec and Quebecois became the preffered terms. It had been known as "Canada" since Jacques Cartier's visit. This is clear in the informal writings of British, French Canadians, and American colonists from the period. Though it wasn't a nation state, that doesn't mean it didn't describe anything: try to think of it like "New England": a generic regional term used in common parlance during the period. User:Wyldkat

This was not an invasion either
http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=36577&query=hazen

The american intention was never to invade Quebec but to liberate them The only reason they continued was because people IN quebec told them to come in :

The american were going back when they were INVITED TO COME BACK... Philip John Schuyler, and told of bleak prospects for American success. As a result, a council of war decided to abort the invasion, but it reversed its decision when James Livingston*, an American established at Chambly, described the situation in a far more optimistic light.

300 people from Quebec won the victory at fort Chambly

This is hardly an Invasion

And people in Montréal wrote congratulation to their american liberator (letter of Valentin Jautard)

-- Well, given the British jurisdiction in the area, it could at least be called an occupation now, could it?-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.42.8 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hundreds of Quebeckers fought with the american
I don't think that 300 Quebeckers could be described as a few and they were even more then that

According to a british survey done at the time 757 french quebeckers (from Lacoursière Book) actively took part in helping the american (See François Baby,Tashereau, Williams survey)

Of 50 parish only 2 did not have people who actively helped the american...

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=36366&query=françois%20AND%20baby

Operations had only begun, however, when the American invasion of the colony [see Benedict ARNOLD; Richard Montgomery*] brought Baby’s business to a temporary standstill. On 5 Aug. 1775 he was commissioned a captain in the Quebec militia, which he helped to organize, and in 1776 he was made commissary of military transport. Following the retreat of the Americans, Carleton appointed Baby, Taschereau, and Jenkin WILLIAMS to inquire into disloyalty among the Canadians east of Trois-Rivières during the invasion. Given the circumstances, the commissioners were required to display realism, restraint, diplomacy, and sensitivity. On 22 May they set out on a tour of parishes that would last seven weeks. Beginning around Quebec and the Île d’Orléans, they proceeded upriver along the north shore as far as Trois-Rivières, and then descended the south shore to Kamouraska. In each parish they collected information from the priest, mustered the militia, replaced officers who had collaborated with the Americans, publicly burned American commissions, and harangued the assembly on their duty of loyalty.

They withdrew commissions from officers in 37 of some 50 parishes and fully absolved the local captain in only two.

However, apart from the withdrawal of commissions, the only punishment recorded was the confiscation of weapons from those held to be lacking in sympathy to the government; it was a markedly mild and intelligent response. Apparently about this time Baby was appointed adjutant general of militia, and in 1778 he was promoted lieutenant-colonel.

Since the territory at the time was called The province of Quebec and NOT Canada since the Quebec act of 1774 You need to include the French Quebeckers of Vincennes, Indianna who also joined the american side And the french of Saint-Louis who will also join the american

'''-- For one thing, I doubt that Lacoursière and other valuable historians would use the word "quebeckers" to mention the inhabitants of the Province of Quebec of the time, who called themselves Canadiens, to distinguish themselves from the French. The term "Quebecker" was not in use at the time, please respect historiographic usage..--'''

It was officially called "the province of quebec" at the time, but "Canada" was still used as a term for it (it had been called "Canada" informally since Jacques Cartier arrived). The French inhabitants in general were NEUTRAL during the conflict. Some did fight for the Americans, some did fight for the British, but the MAJORITY (at least the common people or habitants) saw it as a civil war between the English (American colonists and British/Loyalists) that they saw no reason to participate in. Their leaders however in the Roman Catholic Clergy and the Seigneurs were generally pro-British because they mistrusted the American colonists as anti-Catholics, and the British Quebec Act (one of the "intolerable acts" from an American perspective) had preserved their power in the Province of Quebec. - User:Wyldkat

Quebeckers with Ethan Allen
About 80 quebeckers were with Allen in his attack on Montréal

Quebeckers with James Livingston
About 300 Quebeckers were with James in their victory at Fort Chambly :

His 300 Canadians and 50 Americans were instrumental in the fall of Fort Chambly. They will follow him at the battle of Quebec 1775 and were at Saint-John Gates during the attack

They will fight in Quebec and many will join him at the victory of Saratoga (Both battles) We have their french name in the participant of the battle as proof that they were there. (see the link of the 1st canadian regiment)

http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Ythanout/Canadians.htm

The first was, from the beginning, under the command of Colonel James Livingston. He was probably born in Montreal where his father John had settled soon after his marriage to Catryna Ten Broeck, but returned to New York at the outbreak of hostilities. James, as did two of his brothers, joined Montgomery's invading army. Late in 1775 he raised and commanded a regiment of Canadian refugees which fought at St. John's. His 300 Canadians and 50 Americans were instrumental in the fall of Fort Chambly. Likewise he was in the action at Quebec but, at its conclusion, his command dissipated. Congress, however, on January 3, 1776, commissioned him as colonel of the First Canadian to which was added a little later a unit of the New York Line. The First Canadian went on to fight at Fort Stanwix, at Stony Point and at Verplanck's Point as well as in both battles of Saratoga.

Quebeckers with Moses Hazen
Hazen did not recruit in Massachusset, he was in Quebec in the first month of 1776 Many of his recruit did not speak english He had a spy network in Quebec and was sold military weapon by Laterrière

He said to have raised 477 man We know he had at least 250 while in Québec 100 of them will win at the Battle of Saint-Pierre in front of Quebec city (Almost all of them french Quebeckers)

about 175 followed him while he move out of Quebec This is not a few either

At Germantown, Washington gave him his "Public thanks." In his return of March 15, 1779, some "sixteen officers and one hundred and eleven Non-commissioned officers and soldiers are returned Volunteers from Canada."

From this we see that 127 were still with Hazen at Yorktown This take into account that many died in battle So they were 175 from Québec to follow him during the war. That is not a few

Quebeckers with Roger Clark
In Vincennes 75 french quebec milician most of them born in Montréal Actively took part in the war on the american side Defeating the British on the Mississippi (Battle of Fort Sackville) Quebeckers help from François Riday Busseron was instrumental in taking the fort The territory was called the province of Quebec since the Quebec act of 1774 New France successfully freed itself from the british

Quebeckers at Saint-Louis
241 french quebeckers under 40 spanish officers Successfully defended the city of Saint Louis in 1780 This happen in the Spanish side but while the city was still made up of french people

This is not a few

300 of James, 250 of Hazen, 75 of Clark, 241 of Saint-Louis = Make 866 quebeckers took part in the war on the american side

In Quebec 747 were proven to have help the american This doesn't take into account the people they did not know about

Many Abénakis and Acadian also helped

The Battle of Vaudreuil = the Cedars
The region of Vaudreuil is where the City of les cèdres is (The city of Cedars) So the battle in the region of Vaudreuil happened in the city of The Cedars There is no other battle, exept one in Longueil in front of Montréal between Brown and Carleton (Plains2007 (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

(Plains2007 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Quality Rating
I assigned class=Start to this article today, but it's really close to a "B". It needs additional referencing (especially where "fact" tags have been added). PKT (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

City of Quebec
The article repeatedly refers to the city as "Quebec City" rather than "Quebec." This is a flagrant anachronism. The Province of Quebec had been created only in 1774 1763, so the primary use of the name "Quebec" was for the city itself. I doubt that any sources on the attack, even recent ones, refer to "Quebec City." Joeldl (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought the Province of Quebec was created by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, but that's beside your point. There's a balance that needs to be struck between what modern readers know, and what historical usage was at the time.  It also needs to be clear when Quebec refers to the city, and when to the province.


 * Feel free to make changes, but do try to keep those things in mind. (It's not like I own this article or anything.)  Magic ♪piano 13:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're right. 1774 was the Quebec Act. In modern usage, the name of the city can be either Quebec or Quebec City, so it shouldn't be a shock to see it called Quebec. Yes, I will bear in mind that disambiguation as "the city of Quebec" may be necessary when the city is first mentioned. The province should be referred to as "the province of Quebec." Joeldl (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of 'Canada.'
The name Canada came from Jacques Cartier from on one of his expeditions to 'The Orient' was to Canada from where he met the First Nations people and after asking them what thou land shall be called, they told him 'Canada' so thus, the name Canada comes through. This was somewhat during the 1600's, I think.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.11.113 (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Factual error in image: American attack on Quebec: routes of the Arnold and Montgomery expeditions
Seems to me that the arrow from Montreal to Quebec city should be pointing at Sainte-Foy, where the first battles occured, and not Pointe-aux-Trembles, the latter being located on the island of Montreal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.71.189 (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I'm not sure why you are referring to Sainte-Foy -- that name is given to a battle in 1760.  The Battle of Quebec (1775) took place in the lower city.  You should also be aware that, in 1775, "Pointe-aux-Trembles" was the place now known as Neuville, Quebec, which is not on Montreal island.  Magic ♪piano 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved —usernamekiran (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Invasion of Quebec (1775) → Invasion of Quebec – Only name. The article Siege of Mariupol is not called Siege of Mariupol (2022) because of the Battle of Mariupol (1919). Per WP:TITLEDAB, disambiguation is only necessary when there is otherwise an actual conflict in article titles. No such conflict in titles exists. Per WP:AT, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. Parham wiki (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - The year in the current title is an unneeded disambiguator. Indefatigable (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The conquest of New France and Fenian raids could arguably be described as invasions of Quebec. The date in the title probably enhances recognizability. Srnec (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * An article entitled Invasion of Quebec (disambiguation) could be written covering these articles. Some call the Iraq War the war in Iraq, but we do not write the Iraq War (2003–2011) essay title despite the fact that the conflict continues. Parham wiki (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The date is helpful. I bet in 200 years we'll need dates on the Iraq War article too. So, oppose. Srnec (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this should be a list of invasions. The actual invasions would go under various titles. Those would need to be invasions of "Quebec" (ville) and not "Canada, province of New France". Quebec Expeditions that lead to Invasions happened several times, as evidenced by the various sieges and battles. Though, not all invasions resulted in battles or sieges, as can be seen by the article Quebec Expedition (which in the same context, should have a year added because of the same issue as here, many expeditions against Quebec); -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Some call the Iraq War the war in Iraq, but we do not write the Iraq War (2003–2011) essay title despite the fact that the conflict continues. Parham wiki (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As with your other nominations on battles/etc. things do not only have one name, and just because Wikipedia decided a particular title to use, does not mean nothing else uses that name in the real world. The disambiguator is there because there are other things with that name, regardless of whether Wikipedia has chosen to use it or not. Alternate names do not disappear if they are not chosen as the page name. Thus the diambiguation is needed as other topics can also be referred to with the same name, even if the article is using a different pagename. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject British Empire has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Canada has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject New York (state) has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for research purposes its best with date vs Siege of Quebec (1760)... Our purpose.. .an  encyclopedia is designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.