Montcalm defeats Wolfe at Quebec in 1759

[MrHola]

What if General James Wolfe had lost to the French, and not won at the Plains of Abraham? Quebec would have remained under the control of the French crown, so...

- The American colonies would have continued to be reliant on British protection and this may have dampened any enthusiasm to revolt against British rule.

- France would have continued to expand into western Canada and down into the American mid-west; so France, and not England could have become the continetal power.

- Eventually this continent-wide New France (Quebec) may then have eventually developed independence aspirations and broken away from France.

Thoughts?

 

[DJB001]

I'm afraid I'll have to really disagree on this one. The end result (40-50 years) would be an even smaller Quebec/Canada, largely limited to the french dominated area that became Lower Canada and maybe the eastern reaches of Upper Canada along the Ottawa Valley.

There's nothing saying that Pitt wouldn't have simply equipped another army the next year. Wolfe's army was only one of three or four armies operating in North America that year.

Leaving that aside...The problem is that Quebec was a prestige side-show to the French, which probably cost more than it generated...witness Voltaire`s comments about a few acres of Snow. ON the other dside of the coin, the demographics of population and emmigration were heavily in favour of the British in Eastern North America, even if you posit consistently bad generalship for the English. By 1759, there are about 20 English subjects for every French subject in North America.The French could build forts anywhere they liked but they then had to defend them, without a local base of support beyond the Native population.

The Americans were already poised to pour into the Ohio River valley: that is what started the French and Indian War/Seven Year's War in the first place. An French-controlled Quebec may not mean any proclamation line in the north. I doubt you`d see active British support for settlement accross the Appalachains, but equally, I don`t think you`d see them trying too hard to stop it either.

Even if the 1759 campaign had failed, you have to remember that the fighting was being done in Quebec, not the Ohio valley...so to that extent, the French had already lost effective control of the link between Louisiana and Canada. British troops had already cut the French links to the Great Lakes, when they captured Kingston/Fort Frontenac the previous year, so long-term French control of penninsular Ontario is somewhat suspect.

Assuming the rest of the Seven Years War went along as scheduled, a French-controlled Quebec would only remove one of the causes of the American revolution but it would significantly change the face of that war, with no British base in the north. My guess is a much more focussed Southern Strategy right from the beginning, with a neutral Quebec sitting out the initial phases. Very different war indeed.

After that the butterflies are just too many...Does France enter the American Revolution...Does the French revolution happen...what role would a French Quebec play...would the *Americans (independent or as British subjects) buy or conquer Louisiana...

David

 

[Tomac]

What if General James Wolfe had lost to the French, and not won at the Plains of Abraham? Quebec would have remained under the control of the French crown, so...
- The American colonies would have continued to be reliant on British protection and this may have dampened any enthusiasm to revolt against British rule.
- France would have continued to expand into western Canada and down into the American mid-west; so France, and not England could have become the continetal power.
- Eventually this continent-wide New France (Quebec) may then have eventually developed independence aspirations and broken away from France.
Thoughts?

I tehd to agree with David, to make this work, you'd need a PoD much earlier; maybe all the way back to the beginning of the French presence in North America. If the French government had allowed and even encouraged the Huguenots to emigrate to New France instead of excluding them, they might have had a shot.
I say that because in this timeline, you might have been able to generate the loyal (to France) population that would make an invasion a chancey thing.

 

[robertp6165]

There's nothing saying that Pitt wouldn't have simply equipped another army the next year. Wolfe's army was only one of three or four armies operating in North America that year.

That is the crux of the issue. Even if Wolfe's army is completely destroyed at the Plains of Abraham, the British WILL send another...and another if necessary. The British colonists themselves, if Britain refused, would likely have raised an expedition on their own and sent it...it wouldn't have been the first time such an effort had been made, and previous colonial efforts against other targets, such as Louisbourg, had been successful. The British in general, and the American colonists in particular, REALLY wanted France out of North America. British colonists were tired of having to deal with the constant threat of French-led Indian massacres on the frontier. After having expelled France from the rest of New France, they are not going to leave them in control of Quebec. A French victory on the Plains of Abraham just postpones the inevitable by a year, maybe two at most.

 

[benjamin]

To follow up on the common theme here...if Wolfe had been defeated the role of colonial forces would have almost certainly increased. Colonial forces under British or even colonial leadership would have born more of the fighting after this defeat and as such would have earned more prestige and experience on the battlefield. Quebec would have still fallen, but their is the possibility that the colonists would have felt even more bitter in the post war period since they had done more of the fighting. Given the high cost of the Seven Year's War their undoubtly would still ahve been efforts to tax the colonies, but this time the colonies would be less enamoured by the British Army and see themselves as more than able to defend the colonies without the presence of Royal troops. This may cause Pontiac's Rebellion to play out differently and with a different mindset as to how to fight in North America there may be many more victories like OTL Battle of Bushy Run as the Indian uprising is crushed by veteren colonial troops skilled in frontier warfare.

From this will come either an earlier crushing of the Iroquios as the colonists embark on clearing their frontier of all possibly hostile Indians or the Iroquois could be seen as a counter to the rebelling Great Lake tribes. This would have the effect of then changing the role of Indians during the American Revolution. Also, it is possible that during the extended period of colonial fighting after Wolfe's defeat more colonial military leader's besides Washington will arise and have an important role later on.

Overall though I don't think this alone would do anything to prevent the American Revolution and Wolfe's defeat might even work to embolden the colonists and enhance the feeling of mistrust that soured their relationship with England.

Benjamin

 

[67th Tigers]

The Colonial Forces, while useful, really require a stiffening of regulars. The usual ratio was 2 regulars: 1 provincial worked really well. Armies with larger ratios (such as 1 re: 2 provincials at Ticonderoga*) generally performed poorly.

However, the British have a disposable force of 14 battalions ready at home, and this is massively increasing. Naval victories in mid-late 1759 allowed the British to raise a lot of regulars from the Militia, and in 1760 the British massively reinforce their presence in Germany.

The defeat of Wolfe may mean major butterflies in Germany should the British decide to send forces to Canada instead of West Germany...