Is it possible for France to maintain control of North America, while still losing its holdings in India and elsewhere during the seven years war? I'm looking for an scenario where Britain is nominally victorious but has not expanded beyond the Appalachians in North America, Would this prevent an American revolt, since the colonials would be looking to Britain for protection? Or would the lack of conquest make the Americans lose faith in the crown?
France stays in North America.
- Thread starter VictorVanBakker
- Start date
It'd be very hard for France to hold onto anywhere in the OTL United States, but they could potentially hold on in the Canadas. They basically will be forced to retrench into the one area that had heavy French settlement (the future Province of Quebec/Lower Canada) and the other that had a smattering of settlers with potential for more (Ontario/Upper Canada).
And the British colonists would be forced to stay in the Empire if France did hold onto the trans-Appalachian areas. Even past 1763 to 1776 Americans were proudly English without any French about to scare them, however, so they'd probably stay in the Empire willingly and amicably.
And the British colonists would be forced to stay in the Empire if France did hold onto the trans-Appalachian areas. Even past 1763 to 1776 Americans were proudly English without any French about to scare them, however, so they'd probably stay in the Empire willingly and amicably.
Remember, France was given the option of keeping Canada or a sugar island. They chose the latter.
If they chose to keep Canada, instead, or if the Brits decided they weren't going to offer any sugar islands back, France might have had a large presence for longer. Whether they can hold on indefinitely is another question.
If they chose to keep Canada, instead, or if the Brits decided they weren't going to offer any sugar islands back, France might have had a large presence for longer. Whether they can hold on indefinitely is another question.
TFSmith121
Banned
There's an issue regarding immigration policy, however;
There's an issue regarding immigration policy, however; France never came to a really satisfactory method of encouraging "settler" colonies, as witness the histories of Acadia, New France, and Algeria.
For a variety of reasons, there were many more willing emigrants from the British Isles and continental Europe interested in going to what became the US in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries than ever were interested in going to the Francophone colonies in the Eighteenth Century, or even their Anglophone sucessors in the Nineteenth.
Climate was part of it; policy, in North America and in France, was another part; so were the baseline demographics of France.
Best,
There's an issue regarding immigration policy, however; France never came to a really satisfactory method of encouraging "settler" colonies, as witness the histories of Acadia, New France, and Algeria.
For a variety of reasons, there were many more willing emigrants from the British Isles and continental Europe interested in going to what became the US in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries than ever were interested in going to the Francophone colonies in the Eighteenth Century, or even their Anglophone sucessors in the Nineteenth.
Climate was part of it; policy, in North America and in France, was another part; so were the baseline demographics of France.
Best,
I think the title was "earlier permanent settlement of New France"
The idea wasn't that the initial settlement was larger, but that it happened a couple generations earlier (in the time of Cartier rather than Champlain), and natural population growth made all the difference.
unprincipled peter
Donor
why are a couple million English colonists going to be afraid of <100,000 French colonists? France and Canada don't have the ability to project much power against the 13 colonies. The fledgling US will very quickly make nice with Britain, who will comply, because they're going to find that the trade is profitable, and they don't want to see France expand.
why weren't they afraid of those 100,000 French colonists who had the backing of Britain, who has far more cause to invade than French Canada?
You want a guaranteed American revolution? Have France successfully invade Britain in 1759. Patriots are going to be pissed that they spilt blood, invested in the war, then saw the gains get traded back. At the time, they thought they could do the job themselves, but were belittled by English regulars. They revolt, and if they gain independence, will attempt to foster a revolution in Canada, then look to take what they can off a much weaker population.
why weren't they afraid of those 100,000 French colonists who had the backing of Britain, who has far more cause to invade than French Canada?
You want a guaranteed American revolution? Have France successfully invade Britain in 1759. Patriots are going to be pissed that they spilt blood, invested in the war, then saw the gains get traded back. At the time, they thought they could do the job themselves, but were belittled by English regulars. They revolt, and if they gain independence, will attempt to foster a revolution in Canada, then look to take what they can off a much weaker population.
If France ever succeeded in invading Britain, be it in the war of the league of Augsburg, the war of spanish succession, the war of austrian succession, the seven years war, the ARW war or the napoleonic wars, Britain is over as a great power for a generation at least.
And if it happens in 1759, the 13 colonies may well declare independance but them will certainly not retain any french held territory in northern America. They Will even "gratefully" hand back the territories gained in 1713 in exchange for correct relations with France.
'Member,they were America's first ally,so they were bound to give up that land sometime,or the US were going to take it for themselves.But with the fall of imperialism in the 20th century,they needed to give up that land.
I had written a timeline about what would have happened had France's initial attempts at colonisation in North America during the 16th century succeeded. If France's colonisation had begun at that time and even if they only sent a net of 15,000 settlers during the next century and a half, their numbers would have been nearly 300,000 by 1700 and 2 million by 1775, hardly a Herculean task. By comparison, the British colonies had 220,000 European settlers in 1700, and 1.7 million (excluding Quebec) by 1770.
Most permanent settlers could have been indentured servants, in addition to small numbers of soldiers given land grants. The colony could be a dumping ground for criminals accused of hunting illegally on nobles' or royal lands, along with men ignoring the salt tax or selling black market salt. For women they only need orphans and women from the poor houses of the cities, and not in great numbers.
Considering how well the French held up against the British during until 1758 during French-Indian War despite being outnumbered 16 to 1, imagine if their numbers equalled or slightly outnumbered the British. The French habitants were required to undergo military training, one which was far more extensive than that in the British colonies. I'd imagine with the outbreak of the first Anglo-French War, the French would simply overrun the British settlements, at least in New England. IOTL the English occupied Quebec in 1629, a settlement with a fewer than 200 Frenchmen, New England had some 1,800 English settlers at the time. If the French had successfully sustained a colony since 1541, their population would number around 50,000 to 70,000 by 1630. In that scenario, if English settlement in New England does occur, it would be simply overrun.
Most permanent settlers could have been indentured servants, in addition to small numbers of soldiers given land grants. The colony could be a dumping ground for criminals accused of hunting illegally on nobles' or royal lands, along with men ignoring the salt tax or selling black market salt. For women they only need orphans and women from the poor houses of the cities, and not in great numbers.
Considering how well the French held up against the British during until 1758 during French-Indian War despite being outnumbered 16 to 1, imagine if their numbers equalled or slightly outnumbered the British. The French habitants were required to undergo military training, one which was far more extensive than that in the British colonies. I'd imagine with the outbreak of the first Anglo-French War, the French would simply overrun the British settlements, at least in New England. IOTL the English occupied Quebec in 1629, a settlement with a fewer than 200 Frenchmen, New England had some 1,800 English settlers at the time. If the French had successfully sustained a colony since 1541, their population would number around 50,000 to 70,000 by 1630. In that scenario, if English settlement in New England does occur, it would be simply overrun.
Do you have any update on that timeline?
I always wanted to see a New France taking the reigns as the 3rd largest population in the world from France.