[DiogenesLamp]

The British colonies whether they be private or royal were also originally set up to be engines of natural resource exploitation. However it didn’t work out that way. Benign neglect and actively recruiting colonists created conditions where people became Americans. People had the opportunity to build their lives, have things they couldn’t have in the mother country. By the time England felt compelled to reassert control it was too late. The colonies had their own governments, strong local cultures/traditions & the will to do things their own way. England’s only choice was to continue the policy of “benign neglect”. England chose not to do so & the rest is history.

But presumably the British Colonies in Canada were under the same edicts as the British Colonies that became the USA. So why then did the Americans find them objectionable while the British Canadians did not?

BroJoeK would have us believe that the abuses and usurpations only applied to Americans, not Canadians. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I will operate under the belief that British policy toward's North America was the same in Ontario as it was in Massachusetts. In those days, and in British eyes, there was no significant distinction between the two.

[Reily]

I think its pretty obvious Canada & the 13 colonies developed differently. Also for much of the time Canada was under French control - a radically different royal system then the English one. Remember royal charter colonies & private charter were set up to function differently. Every colony was different. England for the most part responded differently and haphazardly to each one over time.The French had a more coherent policy to its colony over time. The British did only at the end, by then it was too late.

British policy at the time of the revolution likely was the same for Ontario as Massachusetts as Virginia. However for Massachusetts, Virginia and 11 others it was a radical & intrusive change.

[x]

Canadian history isn't my strong point, but Ontario ("Upper Canada") didn't get its own government until after the American Revolution. Prior to 1791 it was part of the Quebec, a conquered province.

I don't think Quebec had its own provincial assembly at the time of the American Revolution, either. French Canadians had been defeated and humiliated and were grateful to be allowed to keep their property, their legal system, and their religion. They weren't going to risk all that and be defeated all over again. Nor were French Catholics and New England Calvinists willing to throw in with each other.

Nova Scotians wished to remain neutral. There's plenty of speculation about why they didn't join in America's revolution -- geographical isolation, more recent settlement, ethnic make-up, economic underdevelopment, fear of the French, fear of Britain, dislike of Yankees -- but after American privateer raids and British occupation, there wasn't much chance of its joining America's revolution.