France regains N. American colonies

[JimmyJimJam]

Is it possible to have a PoD where France, after helping the American colonies win the AWI, demand that Britain return control of Quebec? How would Britain respond to this, and how would this alter the shape of N. America as a whole?

 

[Johnnyreb]

First, Britain would have to lose the Battle of the Saints and naval control of the north Atlantic.
The French could then take the sugar islands. As a single sugar island (at that time) was worth more than all 13 colonies put together - and no doubt worth more than Canada, - the British could well negotiate to get one back

 

[JimmyJimJam]

First, Britain would have to lose the Battle of the Saints and naval control of the north Atlantic.
The French could then take the sugar islands. As a single sugar island (at that time) was worth more than all 13 colonies put together - and no doubt worth more than Canada, - the British could well negotiate to get one back

But why might France want Canada back?
How does this complicate things when the French Revolution comes about?

 

[Xen]

I dont think the French could get it back, if memory serves me correctly, in the treaty that gave Britain Quebec there was something about France forever relinquishing control of it. Perhaps if in the treaty the French are forced to give up Haiti instead, while keeping Quebec? Then if this doesnt butterfly away the American Revolution, the French Revolution and Napoleon, when France resumes control of Louisiana, they are forced to give most of it back up after Napoleons defeat, the area around New Orleans remains French, while most of the Northern territory goes to Britain, and some territory goes to Spain, and later Mexico, perhaps Oklahoma, parts of Colorado and Kansas. If the US is still around it gets what is now Arkansas and Missouri, maybe parts of northern Louisiana.

Something that would be intresting would be after the French-Indian Wars, if Britain took Haiti and expelled the French population from Quebec/Haiti the way it expelled the Acaidians years earlier. The French Empire keeps Louisiana, where the expelled French end up going. Spain gets a little bit of Louisiana territory, but not the whole thing.

This would butterfly away the American Revolution with colonists going to settle along the banks of the St Lawrence River. Eventually the British will allow for the settlement west of the Appalachians, giving the Indians reservations and "homelands". As long as the Indians remain loyal to the Crown they will have the protection of the King/Queen, and wont have Colonists inteferring with their business, perhaps something similiar to the treaty the Maori of New Zealand receieved?

 

[Johnnyreb]

The French would want Canada back for the same reason they wanted it in the first place - the fur trade. Your Johnny Frenchman is a great dandy when it comes to clothes, whereas the British (as the world knows) prefer sugar in their tea.
As for the Revolution, many many butterflies, assuming the British now only have disputed control of the sea - no Glorious First of June. But consider this, I was taught the Revolution was partly caused by France being bankrupt after the French/American Wars. If they had enough naval superiority to ensure their trade routes and possession of most of the sugar islands, they would recover in a year. Perhaps the Revolution would not take place at all.
As for how the Revolution would affect French Canada, well, how did it affect French Louisiana? Not a lot, I suspect.

 

[Xen]

The French would want Canada back for the same reason they wanted it in the first place - the fur trade. Your Johnny Frenchman is a great dandy when it comes to clothes, whereas the British (as the world knows) prefer sugar in their tea.
As for the Revolution, many many butterflies, assuming the British now only have disputed control of the sea - no Glorious First of June. But consider this, I was taught the Revolution was partly caused by France being bankrupt after the French/American Wars. If they had enough naval superiority to ensure their trade routes and possession of most of the sugar islands, they would recover in a year. Perhaps the Revolution would not take place at all.
As for how the Revolution would affect French Canada, well, how did it affect French Louisiana? Not a lot, I suspect.

How was the American Revolution caused by the French going bankrupt?

Now your line about how would the Revolution affect the French in Canada? Which Revolution? American or French?

 

[Johnnyreb]

Jimmyjamjam's original question referred to the French Revolution so where I speak of Revolution this means French Rev. As I understand Jimmy's request for a POD we must assume the American Revolution is done, dusted and successful.
After the Brits had to make peace with the USA, a naval war continued against the French, which the British won. I am assuming they did not win and wholly or partially lost control of the north Atlantic. Peace was then negotiated with France, Britain surrendering her last interest on continental America in exchange for a sugar island. The French will have captured and retained the other sugar islands.
My point of discussion was that the (French) Revolution was caused by its bankruptcy after the French/American war (the aristocracy preserved its lifestyle and the peasants had to suffer.) But if France got wealthy quickly, it might be that this wealth trickled down, so removing the cause of the French Revolution.
Another (very sensitive, so far as the infant USA was concerned) reason the French might want Canada is fish. Before I hear someone shout "headwaters of the Mississipi" I should say that sort of thing looks very well on maps in Europe but was of little practical use at the time.

 

[DoleScum]

The French would want Canada back for the same reason they wanted it in the first place - the fur trade. Your Johnny Frenchman is a great dandy when it comes to clothes, whereas the British (as the world knows) prefer sugar in their tea....
If they had enough naval superiority to ensure their trade routes and possession of most of the sugar islands, they would recover in a year. Perhaps the Revolution would not take place at all.

Two things:

1. The fur trade is a big fat red herring. By the mid-late C18th the value of furs coming out of North America was dwarfed in comparison to the cost of maintaining friendly relations with the Indians and garrisoning upcountry forts and posts to protect the trade and traders. The revenue raised by the fur trade by the early 1800s amounted to about £100,000 (if memory serves), god knows what the annual bill for defending Canada was but I imagine it made this sum seem like pocket change.

2. France already dominated the European sugar trade. She control some of the most productive sugar producing islands in the West Indies, Martinique produced something like two to three times that revenue of Jamaica. The sugar trade alone, however total France's control of it was, would not have averted economic crisis in the 1780s, partially because the majority of France's population were so overly burdened with domestic taxes as to prevent them consuming significant amounts of sugar (something Pitt realised was retarding British revenues from tea) and because the global trade in sugar peaked in the first half of the C18th and declined in a fairly consistent manner from the 1750s onwards.

 

[Tom Veil]

I dont think the French could get it back, if memory serves me correctly, in the treaty that gave Britain Quebec there was something about France forever relinquishing control of it.

Under international law, any treaty not affecting the basic rules of civilized nations can be replaced by another treaty.



Also, as others have pointed out, Quebec wasn't that valuable. In fact, I have seen some very well-done defenses of TL's where the British give the USA all of Canada in exchange for Georgia and South Carolina remaining British -- and feel pretty smug for having swindled the colonists. If the French were willing to give up some of their Carribean interests -- and a clever Frenchman could have foreseen in 1787 that Haiti was bound to collapse within the next 20-50 years, so it's possible -- they could have convinced the British to give up Quebec.

 

[Johnnyreb]

I bow to Dole's knowledge but observe that the cost of maintaining empires has never stopped nations from trying to get them, or trying to keep them. We are talking about La Gloire and money is irrelevant.
Vail's point is also well taken. With France in the naval ascendancy, any sugar island they exchange for Canada would be a hostage to fortune in Britain's hands. And speaking of political illusions, the reality is not that the worth of sugar islands was declining, but that everyone thought they were worth a great deal.
Anyway my suggestion that the French Revolution did not take place was thrown at the wall to see if it would stick. Clearly, it won't.
My basic argument is that nothing could be decided about the American continent at that time without command of the sea. Hence my POD of the Battle of the Saints, leaving France in naval ascendancy. If we then have a French Revolution and their navy goes tits up as it did in OTL, this brings Britain back to naval parity, so spoiling a very neat French Empire scenario.

Incidentally, if the French did have Canada and started to move down from the Great Lakes towards the Mississppi, this would rather cramp the westward drive of the USA.

 

[JimmyJimJam]

Incidentally, if the French did have Canada and started to move down from the Great Lakes towards the Mississppi, this would rather cramp the westward drive of the USA.

Precisely. And with France still in North America, and expanding, things could get interesting fast. But, as has been said, keeping its Empire could be a trick.