Alternate Seven Years War

Suppose Quebec had not been conquered by the British in the Seven Years War (1756-1763). Better planning by Montcalm, supply ships from France arrive sooner, etc.

What impact on The American Revolution and our own history would this create?
 
Sounds like an interesting PoD.

But how should that affect the AR?
Less British self-esteem and thus more open-mindedness for the desires of their colonists?
I don't know ...
 
Suppose Quebec had not been conquered by the British in the Seven Years War (1756-1763). Better planning by Montcalm, supply ships from France arrive sooner, etc.

What impact on The American Revolution and our own history would this create?
Not much would change as New France would have been conquered by the British in some other war later on
 
Well Quebec could have helped the US defeat the British, shortening the Revolutionary war...

Then again, many in the New England where upset by the way the British set up the provisional government in Quebec after the Paris Treaty. A French victory could have made things more interesting....
 
?What Revolutionary War?? If France remains in control of Quebec, Ohio, NVermont??, Louisiana. Then they remain the Colonial Bugaboo. and no 1770's ARW.

However France would lose these in the 1780's War, setting the Americas up for some kind of Independence?? Dominion?? United Kingdom??..
 
All disputed territory goes to France, France maintains all their territory in n. America, probably taking some Carribean colonies, Rupert's land may go to France again, and France's colonies in India may grow over the expanse of Britain's, perhaps even taking all of the, leading to France taking Britain's place as oppressors of India.
That, of course, is only about the Colonial part of the war.
What happens in Europe, though?
 
It would have pissed off the Americans, seeing France remain in charge of the hinterland yet again after spending so much treasure and effort to get rid of them. Some crisis may evolve, but likely not one over taxation.
 
All disputed territory goes to France, France maintains all their territory in n. America, probably taking some Carribean colonies, Rupert's land may go to France again, and France's colonies in India may grow over the expanse of Britain's, perhaps even taking all of the, leading to France taking Britain's place as oppressors of India.
That, of course, is only about the Colonial part of the war.
What happens in Europe, though?

Orko

How?:confused::confused::confused: Even presuming the French manage to hold Canada in 1759 and 60 and 61 etc, their still screwed in the wider colonial field after the crushing of their fleets in 59. Coupled with the stronger British economy and greater professionalism of the navy French trade and commerce will continued to be strangled and their colonies isolated and picked off. If say things go very bad in 59 coupled with some internal political conflict meaning that British forces only capture places like Louisberg and also the unwillingness of the Americans to commit to a campaign means no overland advance Canada may stand but the rest of their colonies are still going to fall.

Might even be a case that it helps Britain. With Canada still in French hands Britain instead keeps the Carribean islands, boosting the economy and treasury further. Also, as DuQuense says, with the French in Canada and probably Louisiana, the Americans are less likely to be willing to rebel.

Steve
 
stevep beat me again.:D

As he noted barring a complete and implausible reversal of French fortunes at sea France will get in terms of colonies kept or returned exactly what England is willing to give and nothing more.
 
It depends on how and when they win, and also how they perform in other theatres.

My favourite scenario for this is where Wolfe gets less near-ASB luck at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and Montcalm is alerted to his presence before they scale up towards the Plains. That would give Montcalm enough time to pull his forces out from the surronding area (specifically, Bougainville) and converge on Wolfe's position while he's still establishing himself. That would likely mean nearly all of Wolfe's entire contingent ends up surrending (cept the few fools who try to scale down the cliffs, helpless) and Wolfe himself ends up in French custody. That'd be a huge blow to the British war effort for the U.K. and would definitely throw a much needed lifeline to New France.

In the aftermath of something like that, if the British do less well in India or Europe they could end up receding Ile Royale (Cape Breton Island) and perhaps even having to pay for razing Louisbourg. That kind of humiliation could go many ways. It's possible that the British might tax the colonists as OTL, and you'd have a weaker American revolution, extremely hostile and expansionistic to New France at first (and later on pending their support). It could also mean the British are thrown a freebie, in that they can tax the colonists for the war but keep them together as the French are still up there (I imagine this works better if the Ohio territory is still around).

You can really go either way with it. It could delay revolution and lay the seeds for a single revolutionary state on the East Coast. Without the British to shelter Quebec, the area around otl Ontario/Ohio is probably going to be illegally colonized by British settlers, most of whom will be America- whereas iotl, most people who moved up there were given land tracts by the British government and ended up a nice shelter for loyalists. Relations with the native populations are only likely to worsen, and the Iroquois might end up supporting New France if settlers continue to push northwards.

It could also speed up revolution however. If the British tax and ignore the colonies as iotl, and the Americans still end up humiliated in the war (have to return Louisbourg, no Ohio gains) they could rebel against the British just as they did as iotl. It is going to be a more complex revolution than OTL if it happens, and might end up just being a few rebellions akin to the Canadian rebellions (put down easier, but long-lasting effects on government). It's my opinion that if the British tax the Americans but lose the war, they'll be in a worse position than OTL (they still might win, but its going to hugely affect future relations between their colonies in NA and the mainland). Without a victory to at least look back on, relations with the colonists are going to be more fractured and if the Americans feel they're being taxed for British incompetence (Wolfe's foolish assault at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in a French victory) AND on top of that having to return American naval victories (Louisbourg)...well. There's going to be more than one Boston Tea Party in that scenario :D.
 
Interesting...
Would France get Australia and South Africa too...?

They might get a part of Australia, if they keep winning wars, but I doubt they get South Africa.

The problem with France is, they got really unlucky in a lot of ways iotl but their government was also horribly uninterested (generally) in maintaining British-style colonies. Even if they took a part of Australia, they probably wouldn't turn it into a penal colony (they had the Caribbean for those), and if they hang onto America I'm willing to bet unless you get a king who decides to pour resources into it like Britain, they're just going to delay the inevitable conquest of New France. It'll change a lot and is interesting, but it would take a change France itself to get its overseas empire going.

Now if France can hang onto New France and Louisiana-Mississippi for long enough that a empire-oriented revolutionary/king pop up in their country (like Napoleon-type) then that might change things.
 
If the French are so fortunate as to cling to the area around Quebec and Montreal, and defeating Wolfe is not enough to ensure this, it still does not give them any chance of regaining the other parts of North America they've lost, let alone India, Australia(is it even discovered yet?) or elsewhere.


Far more likely is France gets a sugar island or two or a bit of the border with the HRE in return for surrendering the remainder of Quebec.
 
And what if France keeps Canada and it's Indian possessions but looses Louisiana, Ohio and the Caribbean islands?

Also, without the money from the sugar islands France's treasury will be in a worst position than OTL and we might see an earlier revolution with all the possible butterflies.
 
Ironically the British made concessions on certain sugar islands because it was felt there was a limit to how much sugar Great Britain could absorb, but also because France wanted the associated revenue back and since the British had established that they could take (again) these prized islands if they wished...
 
If the French are so fortunate as to cling to the area around Quebec and Montreal, and defeating Wolfe is not enough to ensure this, it still does not give them any chance of regaining the other parts of North America they've lost, let alone India, Australia(is it even discovered yet?) or elsewhere.


Far more likely is France gets a sugar island or two or a bit of the border with the HRE in return for surrendering the remainder of Quebec.

Defeating Wolfe isn't the coup, it's capturing him and basically putting out a good chunk of British forces around Quebec at the time. Montcalm will still need to hold off the British for the rest of the war, but being able to maintain Quebec and Montreal would be a huge boon to the negotiating table. In a scenario where Wolfe is captured and Montcalm is able to maintain his hold over Quebec (with some assistance), I highly doubt any cessations are made with regards to the territory of Quebec proper. Depending on the war, the Ohio country may or may not get ceded, and unless they fail miserably elsewhere (in India, Caribbean and in Europe) the British don't really have the leverage to demand a complete occupation of Quebec.

That'd leave New France in French protection for another while, as well as other colonies and perhaps a bit of India. If France wins the European theatre it'll make a huge difference, since really all that means is Prussia failing. I doubt the British lose anything- they're still likely to gain Ohio territory whether by cessation or de facto and simply settling it themselves, but they won't gain as much as they did iotl.

The war would end up being totally disasterous for Prussia, but sort of just a redux of Queen Anne's War in NA. You'd have to wait another generation to see if the next one decides anything, and by then a fair bit changes.
 
Midas

I could see such a disaster possibly making Britain dis-interested in further attacks on Canada. However you seem to be relying on such a defeat meaning the French also do better in the Carribean, India and elsewhere. I see no basis for this and if later attacks on Canada were called off - OTL the French nearly took Quebec back during the winter and it was the conquest of Montreal in 1760 that completed the task - then Britain has more resources and a desire to win elsewhere. As such I could see the rest of the colonial war going as bad for the French and the Spanish, if they come in, as OTL.

You might again see France get Louisburg back in trade for the situation in Europe but their more likely to lose either Guadalupe or Martinique [or possibly both] permanently. As Britain will be determined to keep some gain.

The colonies might see Florida added if we take Cuba, and there will continue to be clashes on the Ohio border as settlers seek to flood west. As you say, barring a revolution in France it will probably just delay matters to the next war.

Steve

Defeating Wolfe isn't the coup, it's capturing him and basically putting out a good chunk of British forces around Quebec at the time. Montcalm will still need to hold off the British for the rest of the war, but being able to maintain Quebec and Montreal would be a huge boon to the negotiating table. In a scenario where Wolfe is captured and Montcalm is able to maintain his hold over Quebec (with some assistance), I highly doubt any cessations are made with regards to the territory of Quebec proper. Depending on the war, the Ohio country may or may not get ceded, and unless they fail miserably elsewhere (in India, Caribbean and in Europe) the British don't really have the leverage to demand a complete occupation of Quebec.

That'd leave New France in French protection for another while, as well as other colonies and perhaps a bit of India. If France wins the European theatre it'll make a huge difference, since really all that means is Prussia failing. I doubt the British lose anything- they're still likely to gain Ohio territory whether by cessation or de facto and simply settling it themselves, but they won't gain as much as they did iotl.

The war would end up being totally disasterous for Prussia, but sort of just a redux of Queen Anne's War in NA. You'd have to wait another generation to see if the next one decides anything, and by then a fair bit changes.
 
Ironically the British made concessions on certain sugar islands because it was felt there was a limit to how much sugar Great Britain could absorb, but also because France wanted the associated revenue back and since the British had established that they could take (again) these prized islands if they wished...

Grimm

Intresting idea. Not sure if its accurate as a lot of the sugar trade was carrying stuff, to pass through Britain to Europe. Have heard that the point was that the British planters on the existing sugar islands didn't want competition in their home market [and possibly 3rd ones] from the very profitable French islands. A similar thing with Cuba while we held it, which was highly profitable. Coupled with the desire not to upset the other powers too much. This is all gut feeling, so it could be wrong but given how wealthy the Caribbean possessions were at the time and that even a highly victorious war had been bloody expensive I think there must have been strong internal factors as well to persuade Parliament to give up such good sources of revenue.

Steve
 
Midas, except that the British plan for Quebec involved several operations of which Wolfe's attack on Quebec and Montreal was last.

The others, including the taking of the Ohio region, Louisburg, the area south of the St Lawrence and so forth is already completed successfully. In the event, unlikely given British planning and French weakness at sea, that further British efforts do not take place or are somehow defeated, this is tantamount to one nation invading and conquering several provinces of another but because two fortresses and a strip between them held out in one province the second nation demands that everything be returned.

For that matter, given French disinterest in colonial affairs if Prussia is doing poorly this means that Austria, long France's great rival, is doing much better so North America may even be less interesting now, especially if Prussian defeat means Austria and Russia find common ground against the Ottomans.
 
Top