Canada development under French Rule
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Such a huge population imbalance between the Americans to the south and the Canadiens mean that any conflict with Britain leaves them open to being annexed (if only until a peace treaty). Depending on butterflies, they would likely be sold with Louisiana.
France had plenty of time to try to develop New France, they just werent interested.
Which is to say there is a very interesting POD here, IMHO, but its "what if France cared about Canada?"
OP asks Say France manages to retain lower and upper Canada. I'm assuming this is post-French and Indian War.
Britain still takes over all the Maritimes and Newfoundland, the Acadian Upheaval still happens, and New England Planters still move into Nova Scotia. The French threat to the colonists is still incredibly lessened if the battles that took over Fort Duquesne, Detroit, Niagara, etc. happened and they happened with undeniable American help - this will help convince the Americans (like OTL, really) they can handle themselves when Britain still taxes them for protection against Amerindians (and French, in this case), while possibly still preventing Americans from moving west into the new expanse of land - it could go both ways, perhaps some western colonies are founded to consolidate the gains against the French in Canada.
If the USA seeks independence, the butterflies'll be interesting. They'll still want French help and so any Canada expeditions could be redirected to the Maritimes or perhaps a much greater one to East Florida (one WAS prepped under Charles Lee, but the troops were dying of disease by the truckload and he was dawdling, and the thing called off). Nova Scotia already had local migrant Jonathan Eddy almost attempt and get somewhat far on his own accord to capture Nova Scotia for the Patriots, and a full-fledged Continental expedition would certainly do the trick.... till the British fleet heading to Halifax in spring 1776 comes by and reconquers that city. You may very well basically see the USA at its OTL borders if we're conservative with butterflies, and some more conserved strength without the Canada expeditions if they aren't rerouted to the Maritimes and Florida. Why wouldn't France want to eliminate Britain from North America as well, or at least the mainland? Britain may just end up with the Maritimes and Newfoundland, or if France is truly lucky with Canadian troops to help and the Royal Navy's weakness during the time period , capture THOSE colonies so Britain can't choke the Canadians off from sea access (and irony if the Planters are expelled, and the disrupted Acadians and Plaisance/Ile-Royal colonists can return and spread back out over those places...).
If both Canadas are held, then the miniscule, almost nonexistent population that existed around French forts in Upper Canada has time to consolidate and grow and Lower Canadians spill over into *Ontario - very vaguely like how many French-speakers played a part in at least Northern Ontario post-Conquest in OTL. America has no particular desire to hold land they think is particularly full of foreigners (witnessing stuff like the All-Mexico Movement of the Mexican War fall flat, or attempts to purchase land from Mexico focus on "empty" places like Texas or above the 37th parallel) and alongside Franco-Canadian help would have no particular animus against Canada anymore like in colonial days. Even in OTL Francophones spread west into the Prairies (Metis, anyone?) and even fur-traded in British Columbia and I can't see why they wouldn't do so, only more because they're the only game in town without Britain or the Hudson Bay Company, here.
Napoleon is an opportunistic bastard and despite claims of reforming the Bourbon empire of North America he would still very likely sell Louisiana. It's big, empty, and if Haiti's gone, worthless as a would-be breadbasket for the French West Indies (and if Canada could've grow food for them ANYWAY....). And he's cognizant of American settlement westward - better to consolidate French North America and set up stable borders with the USA and make some money off of it doing so. There's a fun, fun irony that America and Canada's border may end up nearly if not entirely OTL for convenience's sake, since Oregon Country may very well be divvied up per OTL for simplicity's sake - the 49th parallel was being suggested by the HBC in 1713 as a border and Jefferson began taking up that line of thought as early as 1804.
When would it consolidate? Would it even seek independence? No clue. It probably will at least consolidate for sake of simplicity on France's part and to help defense costs much as Canada confederated OTL. Maybe a TTL *Canadian Rebellions in the 1830s sees America help *Canada win independence and said rebellion becomes a full-blown independence war for the sake of de-facto control of North America, particularly if borders were hashed out faster than OTL (and I could see that, since France would have less interest in North America and work with what it's got when it is). Hispanic America and Brazil have gotten independence by 1825 tops, so *Canada as the last bastion of colonialism in the mainland Americas becoming independent by 1838-1840 ish or so works.
TL;DR
America still likely seeks independence since there's fresh new land to the west, still being taxed, and the French threat considerably lessened.
France may really get lucky re-capturing Acadia, Ile-Royal, Terre-Neuve, and take Rupert's Land from Britain during the American Revolutionary War (with the Royal Navy on a weak period and Canadian bases and troops for help).
Napoleon would likely sell Louisiana to consolidate his territories and get the Americans on his side, get easy cash, when dealing with the British.
No reason why borders can't resemble OTL's Canada-America border since the 49th parallel existed as an idea well before the POD.
French-speakers moved west into Ontario (Franco-Ontarians), the Prairies (Metis), and even British Columbia, here they'd explode without having to fight English-speakers for room and a French-speaking power backing them up.
Consolidation'll happen sooner or later. Maybe independence by late 1830s/early 1840s if built up enough and American assistance?
Britain still takes over all the Maritimes and Newfoundland, the Acadian Upheaval still happens, and New England Planters still move into Nova Scotia. The French threat to the colonists is still incredibly lessened if the battles that took over Fort Duquesne, Detroit, Niagara, etc. happened and they happened with undeniable American help - this will help convince the Americans (like OTL, really) they can handle themselves when Britain still taxes them for protection against Amerindians (and French, in this case), while possibly still preventing Americans from moving west into the new expanse of land - it could go both ways, perhaps some western colonies are founded to consolidate the gains against the French in Canada.
If the USA seeks independence, the butterflies'll be interesting. They'll still want French help and so any Canada expeditions could be redirected to the Maritimes or perhaps a much greater one to East Florida (one WAS prepped under Charles Lee, but the troops were dying of disease by the truckload and he was dawdling, and the thing called off). Nova Scotia already had local migrant Jonathan Eddy almost attempt and get somewhat far on his own accord to capture Nova Scotia for the Patriots, and a full-fledged Continental expedition would certainly do the trick.... till the British fleet heading to Halifax in spring 1776 comes by and reconquers that city. You may very well basically see the USA at its OTL borders if we're conservative with butterflies, and some more conserved strength without the Canada expeditions if they aren't rerouted to the Maritimes and Florida. Why wouldn't France want to eliminate Britain from North America as well, or at least the mainland? Britain may just end up with the Maritimes and Newfoundland, or if France is truly lucky with Canadian troops to help and the Royal Navy's weakness during the time period , capture THOSE colonies so Britain can't choke the Canadians off from sea access (and irony if the Planters are expelled, and the disrupted Acadians and Plaisance/Ile-Royal colonists can return and spread back out over those places...).
If both Canadas are held, then the miniscule, almost nonexistent population that existed around French forts in Upper Canada has time to consolidate and grow and Lower Canadians spill over into *Ontario - very vaguely like how many French-speakers played a part in at least Northern Ontario post-Conquest in OTL. America has no particular desire to hold land they think is particularly full of foreigners (witnessing stuff like the All-Mexico Movement of the Mexican War fall flat, or attempts to purchase land from Mexico focus on "empty" places like Texas or above the 37th parallel) and alongside Franco-Canadian help would have no particular animus against Canada anymore like in colonial days. Even in OTL Francophones spread west into the Prairies (Metis, anyone?) and even fur-traded in British Columbia and I can't see why they wouldn't do so, only more because they're the only game in town without Britain or the Hudson Bay Company, here.
Napoleon is an opportunistic bastard and despite claims of reforming the Bourbon empire of North America he would still very likely sell Louisiana. It's big, empty, and if Haiti's gone, worthless as a would-be breadbasket for the French West Indies (and if Canada could've grow food for them ANYWAY....). And he's cognizant of American settlement westward - better to consolidate French North America and set up stable borders with the USA and make some money off of it doing so. There's a fun, fun irony that America and Canada's border may end up nearly if not entirely OTL for convenience's sake, since Oregon Country may very well be divvied up per OTL for simplicity's sake - the 49th parallel was being suggested by the HBC in 1713 as a border and Jefferson began taking up that line of thought as early as 1804.
When would it consolidate? Would it even seek independence? No clue. It probably will at least consolidate for sake of simplicity on France's part and to help defense costs much as Canada confederated OTL. Maybe a TTL *Canadian Rebellions in the 1830s sees America help *Canada win independence and said rebellion becomes a full-blown independence war for the sake of de-facto control of North America, particularly if borders were hashed out faster than OTL (and I could see that, since France would have less interest in North America and work with what it's got when it is). Hispanic America and Brazil have gotten independence by 1825 tops, so *Canada as the last bastion of colonialism in the mainland Americas becoming independent by 1838-1840 ish or so works.
TL;DR
America still likely seeks independence since there's fresh new land to the west, still being taxed, and the French threat considerably lessened.
France may really get lucky re-capturing Acadia, Ile-Royal, Terre-Neuve, and take Rupert's Land from Britain during the American Revolutionary War (with the Royal Navy on a weak period and Canadian bases and troops for help).
Napoleon would likely sell Louisiana to consolidate his territories and get the Americans on his side, get easy cash, when dealing with the British.
No reason why borders can't resemble OTL's Canada-America border since the 49th parallel existed as an idea well before the POD.
French-speakers moved west into Ontario (Franco-Ontarians), the Prairies (Metis), and even British Columbia, here they'd explode without having to fight English-speakers for room and a French-speaking power backing them up.
Consolidation'll happen sooner or later. Maybe independence by late 1830s/early 1840s if built up enough and American assistance?
unprincipled peter
Donor
Depends on the circumstances surrounding 'remaining French'. Not losing the French and Indian War is different than butterflying the F&IW. Umbric Man covered limited loss in the war.
If the war is averted (which is possible), you have the specter of a rapidly growing (through natural birth rate) Canada and Louisiana. The population will outgrow the limiting seigneurial system, and inner colony migration will lead to French presence throughout Canada. There will be a gray area/type of presence between Louisiana and Canada which will lead to political territorial dispute between the 2 regions.
Although the OTL French presence sought to cohabitate with the natives (a policy that works only with limited French population), eventually cohabitate will take on the aura of displacement of the natives. If immigration from outside Canada remains low, the natural growth rate will make this change much less drastic than the OTL 'English' invasion/displacement. The possibility is there for the natives to have a better assimilation, although make no mistake, the native way of life in the long run is incompatible with European way of life. A longer merging process will mean a bit more give and take, but ultimately the natives will be doing more giving, the Europeans more taking.
French policy had been to limit local manufacture, although there was a metal works factory. With increased growth, that policy is not going to be enforceable, especially as the population moves away from Montreal/Quebec. If France finally gives in and realizes that the colony (actually colonies) is good for more than just fur, a middle class of shops/trade will grow. Mining may also eventually be a larger segment of the economy. A gold/silver strike will bring migration and if the strike(s), or alternate mining, is significant enough, the colony will prosper.
The OTL growth/management trend is sustainable for a generation or two, but the policies will eventually have to change.
My POD is a butterfly of the F&IW (lets say Britain is less aggressive, or France is in better shape/manages the diplomacy better, and a compromise is achieved). This means the internal pressures of the British colonies are completely different than OTL. The colonies are very populated, and will want some sort of autonomy or say in their governance, but sans the F&IW, the economic pressures, the British military presence, and much of the OTL grievances are massively changed. I see the revolutionary war is pushed down the road a generation or two. There's a lot less pressure in the pressure cooker, and it'll take longer to get it to the explosion point.
This means the world geopolitical situation is changed, and one can write a narrative in many different directions. There'll be a major European war at some point (I expect without the F&IW distracting France and Britain and associated Diplomatic Revolution, Frederick in Prussia will not be as aggressive at the time of OTL 7 Years War), but it may not encompass North America in the same manner as OTL F&IW. Pitt may be dead or not in a position to come into power.
Don't assume OTL French Revolution occurs.
Now, I'll address the population disparity between French NA and British NA. Many point to it and think it inevitable the Brits dominate the the continent. OTL, the disparity is not what allowed the conquest of Canada. What carried the day is that Britain was able to transfer armies and materials from Britain to NA, while France could not. European military power conquered Canada, not the large colonial British population. Certainly, that population and food/industry/economy helped the British, but it was foreign firepower that beat foreign firepower.
What matters for the French is not to equal the British population, but to achieve a minimal presence which prevents being swallowed. They just need to be large enough to deter attack. Canada was rapidly approaching that level. If they had held on another generation or two, especially if augmented by foreign immigration, they would be large enough to make them a tough pill to swallow in an annexation scenario.
I think without Pontiac's Rebellion post F&IW and without the need to absorb a French Canadian population into the NA empire, you don't see the Proclamation of '63. The British NA over population will be allowed to migrate westward. France claimed east of Mississippi to the Appalachians, but had no presence there. I don't think they can hold it. I envision British Ohio,Kentucky, Illinois; French Illinois,Indiana, Mississippi, Alabama; and Spanish Florida. French Louisiana will grow, as will their presence in the Great Lakes region.
I think this situation can hold well into the 1800s unless European/World geopolitical timeline intervenes. The big difficulty for France is the evolution into a new type of colony and how to manage the change.
If the war is averted (which is possible), you have the specter of a rapidly growing (through natural birth rate) Canada and Louisiana. The population will outgrow the limiting seigneurial system, and inner colony migration will lead to French presence throughout Canada. There will be a gray area/type of presence between Louisiana and Canada which will lead to political territorial dispute between the 2 regions.
Although the OTL French presence sought to cohabitate with the natives (a policy that works only with limited French population), eventually cohabitate will take on the aura of displacement of the natives. If immigration from outside Canada remains low, the natural growth rate will make this change much less drastic than the OTL 'English' invasion/displacement. The possibility is there for the natives to have a better assimilation, although make no mistake, the native way of life in the long run is incompatible with European way of life. A longer merging process will mean a bit more give and take, but ultimately the natives will be doing more giving, the Europeans more taking.
French policy had been to limit local manufacture, although there was a metal works factory. With increased growth, that policy is not going to be enforceable, especially as the population moves away from Montreal/Quebec. If France finally gives in and realizes that the colony (actually colonies) is good for more than just fur, a middle class of shops/trade will grow. Mining may also eventually be a larger segment of the economy. A gold/silver strike will bring migration and if the strike(s), or alternate mining, is significant enough, the colony will prosper.
The OTL growth/management trend is sustainable for a generation or two, but the policies will eventually have to change.
My POD is a butterfly of the F&IW (lets say Britain is less aggressive, or France is in better shape/manages the diplomacy better, and a compromise is achieved). This means the internal pressures of the British colonies are completely different than OTL. The colonies are very populated, and will want some sort of autonomy or say in their governance, but sans the F&IW, the economic pressures, the British military presence, and much of the OTL grievances are massively changed. I see the revolutionary war is pushed down the road a generation or two. There's a lot less pressure in the pressure cooker, and it'll take longer to get it to the explosion point.
This means the world geopolitical situation is changed, and one can write a narrative in many different directions. There'll be a major European war at some point (I expect without the F&IW distracting France and Britain and associated Diplomatic Revolution, Frederick in Prussia will not be as aggressive at the time of OTL 7 Years War), but it may not encompass North America in the same manner as OTL F&IW. Pitt may be dead or not in a position to come into power.
Don't assume OTL French Revolution occurs.
Now, I'll address the population disparity between French NA and British NA. Many point to it and think it inevitable the Brits dominate the the continent. OTL, the disparity is not what allowed the conquest of Canada. What carried the day is that Britain was able to transfer armies and materials from Britain to NA, while France could not. European military power conquered Canada, not the large colonial British population. Certainly, that population and food/industry/economy helped the British, but it was foreign firepower that beat foreign firepower.
What matters for the French is not to equal the British population, but to achieve a minimal presence which prevents being swallowed. They just need to be large enough to deter attack. Canada was rapidly approaching that level. If they had held on another generation or two, especially if augmented by foreign immigration, they would be large enough to make them a tough pill to swallow in an annexation scenario.
I think without Pontiac's Rebellion post F&IW and without the need to absorb a French Canadian population into the NA empire, you don't see the Proclamation of '63. The British NA over population will be allowed to migrate westward. France claimed east of Mississippi to the Appalachians, but had no presence there. I don't think they can hold it. I envision British Ohio,Kentucky, Illinois; French Illinois,Indiana, Mississippi, Alabama; and Spanish Florida. French Louisiana will grow, as will their presence in the Great Lakes region.
I think this situation can hold well into the 1800s unless European/World geopolitical timeline intervenes. The big difficulty for France is the evolution into a new type of colony and how to manage the change.
Well, in the immediate aftermath of the loss of New France, there was a disastrous attempt to settle Guiana with 12,000 settlers from France, many of whom succumbed to disease very quickly.
Perhaps they could be sent to Québec instead in a victorious Seven Years War scenario? Also avoiding the expulsion of the Acadiens should help.
The population will still outgrow the St Lawrence lowlands quickly, and will lead to increased French presence in Todays Ontario, and eventually, southern Manitoba.
If the French hold on long enough these areas may develop the seigneurial system, the Métis eventually used this system in Manitoba & Saskatchewa. You could potentially even see these provinces become Métis majority.
Many of the Pieds noirs were not originally from France but Spain, Italy or Malta. Those who did come from France were often from the periphery, like Alsace.
But in the previous century, French demography was more dynamic and it was possible for there to be greater settlement in the Americas, it just was not a high priority.
France possessing Canada during the Revolution (if it still happens) would be very interesting. I could imagine a scenario in which the Canadiens form an alliance of convenience with the British and Canada becomes a refuge for the émigrés.
The population imbalance really was not a major reason Canada was conquered. It may have been a factor in the conquest of the Ohio Valley, but Canada proper was more defensible. There are not that many ways to invade Canada and defenses can be concentrated there.
The true advantage for the British was their naval force, which allowed them to send reinforcements while preventing the French from doing the same. Even then, their 1759 campaign could have failed, had Montcalm kept his nerve and not engaged the British forces before Bougainville could arrive.
After 1670, Canada failed to attract significant numbers of French immigrants, most of whom came from the coastal regions of Western and Northern France and to a lesser extent Paris. The population grew almost exclusively on natural increase as the majority of French military men whom settled in Canada would return to France. By the mid-nineteenth century French Canada became a huge exporter of migrants to New England and Michigan. This would last until around 1930 with some 900,000 French Canadians leaving Quebec for the mill towns of New England where rural French Canadians were able to earn higher wages than they would in Montreal.
Quebec itself did attract Anglophone migrants whom would transform the economy of the cities and dominate the commercial life of Montreal and Quebec City in the nineteenth century. There were also a significant number of Irish immigrants to Canada during the mid-nineteenth century, with 286,000 Irish-born inhabitants living in Canada in 1861. Later in the century Montreal would attract Jewish immigrants whom would begin to establish themselves as well, and there were also a huge number of Italian labourers, whom often worked in the railway shops or in other temporary labour. If Canada remains under French rule, things would be very different.
Algeria in contrast, was a Mediterranean society, with the vast majority of Pieds-Noirs having migrated from not very far. Most came to Algeria because they were familiar with Mediterranean farming or fishing. Before World War I, in the departments of Algiers and Oran, Spaniards arrived in their thousands every harvest as temporary labourers, and around 10% would settle permanently. Further east, in Constantine it was Italians from Sicily and Malta and there were also the Algerian Jews who predated the French conquest, but unlike their Muslim brethren were in 1870 granted full French citizenship by the Crémieux Decree. Even those who did settle from France were overwhelmingly peasants whose first language was not French. These being Corsican and Occitan speakers with some Alsatians in the early 1870s as well.
Ethno-linguistic breakdown of the Pieds-Noirs
40% Spanish (Alicante, Murcia, Valencia and Menorca)
25% mainland France (mostly Languedoc and Provence and to a lesser extent Paris)
20% Corsicans, Italian & Maltese (mostly Naples and Sicliy)
12% Naturalised Jews (Granted in 1870 by the Crémieux Decree)
3% Germanic (Swiss, Alsace-Lorraine and German)
What if one of the Bourbon's ends up fleeing to Canada and took ower in the name of the crown and forms a government in exile?
Edit:
They become quasy independent during the Napoleonic period and decide not to give it up when it ends. They would also receive a number of settlers - royalists, catholics the enemies of the revolution and napoleon - that significantly bolsters their numbers. In the homeland they are happy to be rid of the troublemakers. After the fall of the Monarchy and under Napoleon III the number of immigrants is again heavily increases - and especially during the conflicht with the church during the 3rd republic. In the end French Canada would be a monarchy - after a while parliamentary - and strongly catholic. They would also likely be happy to receive a significant numbe of Irish - catholics who are not particularly friendly to the british.
However AFAIK a lot of the british immigrants to the USA in the late 19th century were originally shipped by the british to Canada as settelers there but found their way south to the USA after arrival. However in this instance the brits would likely send their settler elsewhere - much more people to Australia and New Zeeland maybe? And a more german USA?
Edit:
They become quasy independent during the Napoleonic period and decide not to give it up when it ends. They would also receive a number of settlers - royalists, catholics the enemies of the revolution and napoleon - that significantly bolsters their numbers. In the homeland they are happy to be rid of the troublemakers. After the fall of the Monarchy and under Napoleon III the number of immigrants is again heavily increases - and especially during the conflicht with the church during the 3rd republic. In the end French Canada would be a monarchy - after a while parliamentary - and strongly catholic. They would also likely be happy to receive a significant numbe of Irish - catholics who are not particularly friendly to the british.
However AFAIK a lot of the british immigrants to the USA in the late 19th century were originally shipped by the british to Canada as settelers there but found their way south to the USA after arrival. However in this instance the brits would likely send their settler elsewhere - much more people to Australia and New Zeeland maybe? And a more german USA?
Last edited:
In 1754 and 1755 the British made demands from the French for the territory shown in pink on the map attached. It seems even at the closure of the war Britain was still willing to accept those borders, though now they also claimed Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island, along with Spanish Florida in exchange for Guadeloupe, St. Lucia, Dominica and St. Vincent. Had France been able to keep the territory below, it is conceivable that the French from the Saint Lawrence River Valley would have begun to move to the more fertile regions around the great lakes as land would have become sparse by the early nineteenth century. Detroit was already a sizeable trading post with some agricultural settlers, and the land is able to sustain a longer growing season than that of the St Lawrence Valley. Today, southern Ontario's warmer climate provides far more agricultural produce than Quebec, with a far more fruit orchards and truck gardens than the latter. Perhaps the Acadians are still expelled and are resettled there rather than in Louisiana. In OTL the westward movement of the French was blocked by the settlement of Anglophones, not only loyalists, but many land-hungry Americans whom would in Lower Canada at the invitation of the British government.
Culturally, French North America in Canada and Acadia was a paradox because it was in many ways a rural France of the seventeenth century. However, it was largely free from famine or even the extremes in wealth found in France. Additionally, even though there was a seigneurial system, the tithes were not onerous and most of the habitants had far more livestock or land than their European counterparts. Particularly impressive to visitors was the abundance of horses, with most families having at least one, something that would have been uncommon amongst the French peasantry. Importantly, the habitants were free to sell or lease their own lands, and usually were only required to provide the seigneur (half were ecclesiastical) with a few days a year of work that was limited mainly to road building or upkeep of communal mills.
Unlike France, French Canada was a society where the enlightenment never took hold. Parish priests were the leading source of information for the various villages and there would be newspapers of government gazettes until after the British conquest. Schooling was not seen as important and literacy rates actually declined with the generations. Looking at marriage records, by 1750 fewer than one-third of the men in New France sign their own name, whereas in the 1670s that number was over 40%. The reason being that in the 1670s French-born individuals accounted for the majority of the colony's population. In what remained of French Acadia, the number was far lower, hovering around 10%. For the Canadiens, formal education was simply not seen as beneficial in a society where agriculture, fur trapping or working as a craftsman were the principal occupations. The literate were largely the clergy, the seigneurs and administrators from France. In Metropolitan France around one-half of men were able to read by the mid-eighteenth century. With no printing presses, the few books in the colony tended to be considered heirlooms and were often listed individually in wills as valuable property. This situation contrasted New England where the literacy rate was nearing 90% of adults by the late eighteenth century and there were printing presses along with newspapers and books. Reading of the bible was also seen as important by many of the denominations in what was at the time an overwhelmingly Protestant region.
Culturally, French North America in Canada and Acadia was a paradox because it was in many ways a rural France of the seventeenth century. However, it was largely free from famine or even the extremes in wealth found in France. Additionally, even though there was a seigneurial system, the tithes were not onerous and most of the habitants had far more livestock or land than their European counterparts. Particularly impressive to visitors was the abundance of horses, with most families having at least one, something that would have been uncommon amongst the French peasantry. Importantly, the habitants were free to sell or lease their own lands, and usually were only required to provide the seigneur (half were ecclesiastical) with a few days a year of work that was limited mainly to road building or upkeep of communal mills.
Unlike France, French Canada was a society where the enlightenment never took hold. Parish priests were the leading source of information for the various villages and there would be newspapers of government gazettes until after the British conquest. Schooling was not seen as important and literacy rates actually declined with the generations. Looking at marriage records, by 1750 fewer than one-third of the men in New France sign their own name, whereas in the 1670s that number was over 40%. The reason being that in the 1670s French-born individuals accounted for the majority of the colony's population. In what remained of French Acadia, the number was far lower, hovering around 10%. For the Canadiens, formal education was simply not seen as beneficial in a society where agriculture, fur trapping or working as a craftsman were the principal occupations. The literate were largely the clergy, the seigneurs and administrators from France. In Metropolitan France around one-half of men were able to read by the mid-eighteenth century. With no printing presses, the few books in the colony tended to be considered heirlooms and were often listed individually in wills as valuable property. This situation contrasted New England where the literacy rate was nearing 90% of adults by the late eighteenth century and there were printing presses along with newspapers and books. Reading of the bible was also seen as important by many of the denominations in what was at the time an overwhelmingly Protestant region.
Attachments
@Viriato What were the exact demands of Britain in territorial terms in text form? I never knew they even did so pre-war, though I believe it, it’s definitely not surprising.
unprincipled peter
Donor
This is my understanding of the situation:
Pre French and Indian War, Britain and France argued about where the border should be. France claimed everything west of the Proclamation Line of 1763: the whole Ohio Valley, and everything west of the Appalachian Mountains. France also claimed Acadia, the northern half of Maine and much of Northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Britain claimed the east bank of the Mississippi River, the Ohio Valley, and the southern bank of the St Lawrence River. These claimed overlapped.
Britain specifically claimed Ohio and West Virginia, and the French governor of Canada started a line of forts in the Pittsburgh area to block those claims. The governor of Virginia (Dinwiddle, I think) sent a small force under George Washington to stop the construction. What ensued was a diplomatic standoff with Britain getting more and more bellicose as France displayed weakness in willingness to negotiate. Britain pushed a little too much (increasing demands to include Illinois, which would cut the line of communication between Canada and Louisiana), and military actions escalated until war ensued.
Bottom line is the war started over dispute of ownership of the Ohio region. There were additional disputes, but the specific territory of contention was Ohio.
Throughout the December to March of 1755 the Duc de Mirepoix whom was French ambassador to London was busily negotiating not just in North America, but in India as well. I found an old book of diplomatic correspondence, being mainly letters. It seems that the Newcastle government was eager to negotiate and Mirexpoix was well liked in London. Troubles arose with France's foreign secretary whom was bellicose and on 3 February 1755 he sent a letter stating that the lands of the Ohio River "belong incontestably to the king" and that Franc was ready if forced to make war.
However, the negotiations continued with the first proposal to make the land west of the Wabash River French and the land between the Ohio and the Allegheny Mountains a "neutral zone" with both powers demolishing any forts and settlements in the region. Essentially present-day Indiana would remain French. This proposal was made on the 10 February 1755. On the 20 February, a more favourable proposal to the French agreed to push French sovereignty to the to the Cuyahoga River, granting France most of present-day Ohio with Britain keeping everything southwards of the Ohio River. The final negotiations in the last week of February 1755, Britain was willing to make more concessions including recognising all of Acadia without the Nova Scotia peninsula as French. In addition, France would retain full possession of the St Lawrence passage and of the usual lines of communication between Canada, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi Valley, and the right to develop Illinois undisturbed. The negotiations also included India, as the French were building up their position in the Carantic. However, the French government pressed its claim to the entire Ohio watershed and was unwilling to budge.
Last edited:
unprincipled peter
Donor
Britain had given a land grant to the Ohio Company covering what is the state of Ohio.
Everything I've read has Britain claiming Ohio and not willing to negotiate. I believe they then pressed their claim to include OTL Indiana.
I think if Britain were to cede everything west of OTL Pittsburgh (which is where the line of French forts were), France would have done a happy dance, and made the deal. They were desperate to avoid war. South of the Ohio would be in contention, but was seen as Indian Territory, not for settlement, so would be left for another day.
From the diplomatic correspondence, Britain was far more willing to negotiate than France. OTL Indiana was ceded unconditionally to the French as Thomas Robinson, the Secretary of State for the Southern department agreed that the Wabash was to be French as they used it for trade and navigation. The letters from Rouille to Mirepoix showed that he was unconcerned about war, and seemed to be pressing for it. Regarding the land grants, one of the provisions was that both parties would abandon the "neutral territory". However, from the start the French government was unwilling to negotiate. Rouille wrote to Mirepoix on 3 February 1755. "His Majesty (Louis XV) eagerly wishes for peace . . . but if he is forced to make war he will fear neither the expense nor the danger."
It seems that on 26 March 1755 Robinson wrote to Mirexpois that a neutral zone would be "an eastern line that ran from Cuyahoga Bay to the western ranges of the mountains of the Virginia and thence to the 39°". On the west, France was to be allowed "both banks of the Wabash". Fort Niagara on Lake Ontario and Fort Saint-Frédéric (Crown Point) on Lake Champlain were to be evacuated by the French. From the letters, the British government was more concerned with access to the southern portions of Lake Ontario and Lake Champlain, and on May 1, Robinson offered to extend the neutral zone as far east as the mountains (Allegheny).
Thank you to both of you, that is fascinating.
This is intriguing and amusing for a "history doesn't repeat but it does rhyme" sense. If Britain did push to Illinois and essentially the Mississippi River at one point I find it amusing that's what they nabbed to in 1763 and thus what the Americans eager for westward expansion got in 1783.
But even the initial detailed "Neutral Zone" in these 1755 negotiations between the Wabash River and Alleghenies vaguely follows a proposed colony in 1763 centering around the Ohio Country named "New Wales" - its borders were described in degrees of latitude and longitude, but they centered the colony nucleus right in OTL Ohio and south of the Wabash.... and if you added in every other proposed colony's borders first (your Charlotinas, Transylvanias, Vandalias, etc.) the New Wales would confirm nigh-exactly to this "Neutral Zone"'s proposed lines! Had the Americans stayed with Britain and colonial development inland occurred instead of being stymied by the 1763 Proclamation I suspect an *Ohio Colony taking the land between the Wabash and Appalachians in specific is inevitable.
EDIT: Ah, I talked about it many years ago here, how convenient.
This is intriguing and amusing for a "history doesn't repeat but it does rhyme" sense. If Britain did push to Illinois and essentially the Mississippi River at one point I find it amusing that's what they nabbed to in 1763 and thus what the Americans eager for westward expansion got in 1783.
But even the initial detailed "Neutral Zone" in these 1755 negotiations between the Wabash River and Alleghenies vaguely follows a proposed colony in 1763 centering around the Ohio Country named "New Wales" - its borders were described in degrees of latitude and longitude, but they centered the colony nucleus right in OTL Ohio and south of the Wabash.... and if you added in every other proposed colony's borders first (your Charlotinas, Transylvanias, Vandalias, etc.) the New Wales would confirm nigh-exactly to this "Neutral Zone"'s proposed lines! Had the Americans stayed with Britain and colonial development inland occurred instead of being stymied by the 1763 Proclamation I suspect an *Ohio Colony taking the land between the Wabash and Appalachians in specific is inevitable.
EDIT: Ah, I talked about it many years ago here, how convenient.
unprincipled peter
Donor
In early 1755, Britain was busy escalating the conflict by sending a major force under Braddock, plans of which started the previous year. This is hardly the action of a country looking to compromise to the point of giving up almost the entirety of the disputed region.
From what I can gather the expedition was meant as a warning to the French to vacate the territory. It does seem odd that both powers were so intransigent when it came to the territory. Once an agreement was almost agreed upon the French court would not budge on allowing British or British allied Indian traders in the neutral territory, whereas the British wanted to allow traders of either nation to pass into the neutral territory. However, I do imagine that with time, any neutral territory would likely have ended up British. Had an agreement been reached, French North America could have hobbled along for at least another generation or until the next Anglo-French conflict. However, by 1800 New France would have a mere 250,000 Europeans vs 4.5 million in the British North America.
Despite the numeric imbalance, until 1758 French and their Indian allies fought well. However, the arrival of 20,000 troops from Britain made it so that tide began to turn against them. As things were, unlike the British, the French government was unwilling to commit large numbers of metropolitan troops to North America, meaning the Canadiens were largely on their own. The French West Indies were the focus of the French crown's attention. Those islands, particularly Saint-Domingue were far more valuable and had exports that were fifty times as great as those of New France and Acadia combined. By the 18th century, France's islands were the world's leading sugar producers and were able to export sugar at a cheaper cost than the British islands. This meant that even British subjects from the Americas were smuggling molasses from the French islands, leading parliament to pass the "Molasses Act" in 1733 and the "Sugar Act" in 1764. French North America in contrast was a perpetual financial burden on the French exchequer, and unlike British North America it had a small population, meaning that it accounted for a mere 3% of France's overseas trade.
It is often said that France needed to send more settlers to keep North America French and this is largely true. They could send more Catholic Germans as they did to Louisiana along the Côte des Allemands. They also relied on Catholic Rhinelanders, Swiss, and Alsatians when in 1763 Choiseul formulated an ill-conceived plan to send 12,000 of these settlers to Guiana. France did not have the "push factor" to persuade the peasantry to emigrate en-masse. The lands to the east of the Rhine did and conceivably the French crown could have created a more populous French North America by attracting "foreigners" to help colonise North America.