AHWI:French retake Quebec during the Revolution

I know we have had many threads on this, but, humor me.:D
If the French invade and capture Quebec during the American revolution, and successfully retain control of it after the Revolution, for the newly formed United States, would this result in more Pro-French or anti-French, which the Republicans and Democratic-Republicans could hinge a ride on?

This would obviously hinder the expansion of the US across the continent, and the Federalist Party might actually be stronger this time around.but in terms of the presidents, would we still see Jefferson, or Adams? Perhaps even Hamilton?
 
Does France have the navy for it? And more importantly, would they want to? France never really cared about their "few acres of snow" in the first place.

As for US expansion, it depends on who gets the Ohio Valley in the peace treaty. If it goes to the US, I can see the situation developing as OTL, with the possible exception that the *War of 1812 might be fought against France rather than England. If France gets the Ohio valley, then I think a US-France war becomes pretty much inevitable, probably in alliance with Britain during the Revolutionary/Napoleonic era.
 
France really lacked the navy for such an undertaking, and in any case they preferred to focus on the Caribbean theater. The sugar isles were immensely profitable, and capturing them imposed considerable economic harm on their enemies. Capturing Quebec would scarcely have hurt England economically, and scarcely threatened their military position in the colonies. Halifax, on the other hand would hurt, and probably necessary before invading Quebec, but that is outside the OP

The only way France gets Quebec back is if it inflicts a crushing defeat on the RN, and even that might not be enough. Perhaps a successful invasion of England or Scotland, with French troops establishing a foothold and defying all attempts at driving them back into the sea, forcing England to come to the negotiating table as a supplicant.

Furthermore, France getting Quebec would result in a major falling out with the Colonists, who had serious aspirations of incorporating Canada.

Maybe this could happen if France won crushing victories over the British in all theaters, but somehow the colonists experience less success than IOTL, and are excluded from the negotiations to end the War, the final treaty being negotiated amongst the European powers and dictated to the colonies.
 
I always thought that France would be the big winner if a bastardized version of the American revolution spread to Britain in the force of a revolt against the monarchy, akin to the French Revolution. Of course, all outcomes of such an event speed up the French Revolution, ironically.
 
well if the frenhc interfered fully by invading quebbec during the amw then that would be adeclaration of war against britian..and the french would lose...mainly cos itll probaly draw in the prussians and austrians who had alot of claims on french stuff at the time
 
I know we have had many threads on this, but, humor me.:D
If the French invade and capture Quebec during the American revolution, and successfully retain control of it after the Revolution, for the newly formed United States, would this result in more Pro-French or anti-French, which the Republicans and Democratic-Republicans could hinge a ride on?

Hmm, I could definitely see Québec go anti-French. "C'est vous? Partez-vous maintenant, tabarnak!"
 
I'm pretty sure the French had plans to take Canada back, as well as to take Jamaica. Neither came to much because of British naval superiority.

This supremacy at sea was threatened over the course of the war as more powers entered on the American side, and when the British realised the rest of the Empire was at risk they quickly made peace.
 
I think Quebec becoming independent is more likely at this point. Their loyalty to France was an extent as much as their cousins the English Colonists.
 
I think they were pretty furious at France for abandoning them in the first place.

I mean even beforehand. As described by one commentar of the pre7 Years War period they were not 'docile'. Especially considering that just befor the war erupted the French government seemed to began enacting their own 'navigation acts'.
 
France really lacked the navy for such an undertaking, and in any case they preferred to focus on the Caribbean theater. The sugar isles were immensely profitable, and capturing them imposed considerable economic harm on their enemies. Capturing Quebec would scarcely have hurt England economically, and scarcely threatened their military position in the colonies. Halifax, on the other hand would hurt, and probably necessary before invading Quebec, but that is outside the OP

The only way France gets Quebec back is if it inflicts a crushing defeat on the RN, and even that might not be enough. Perhaps a successful invasion of England or Scotland, with French troops establishing a foothold and defying all attempts at driving them back into the sea, forcing England to come to the negotiating table as a supplicant.

Furthermore, France getting Quebec would result in a major falling out with the Colonists, who had serious aspirations of incorporating Canada.

Maybe this could happen if France won crushing victories over the British in all theaters, but somehow the colonists experience less success than IOTL, and are excluded from the negotiations to end the War, the final treaty being negotiated amongst the European powers and dictated to the colonies.

You are mistaken as far as the french navy is concerned. The reign of Louis XVI was a period (with the time of Louis XIV and the third republic) when the french navy was stronger than ever. This very strong naval effort was one of the main reasons for the public debt of the french kingdom. That's why, with its allies, France was able to defeat Britain in the american revolution war.

But you are absolutly right on the fact that the french ruling elites were hopelessly short-sighted in hanging on the sugar islands since their profitability depended on slavery and since their control depended on the domination of seas.

And the question of the thread leads to another question : since the anti-french feeling was vert deeply rooted and had been the cement of the 13 colonies during the french and indian war of 1754-1763, would the alliance between France and the insurgents have survived until the defeat of the british ?

I strongly doubt of it.

I think the insurgents might have tried to reach an agreement with the British rather than having France taking the place of Britain in all the eastern part of current Canada. Because this would otherwise have meant a quasi return to the pre-1954 situation when the Bourbons dominated America from Québec to New Orléans. And this time, the 13 colonies would have been deprived in the future of the support of Britain.
 
Top