Surviving New France and consquences

[funnyhat]

The POD should be in the early 1600s. It was in 1627 when Richelieu forbade all Protestant settlement in North America. Prior to that time, many (a majority?) of French settlers were Protestants, so this was a major change. Richelieu had a practical reason for this: he was then at war with the Huguenots in the southwest, who in turn were allied with the English, so he didn't trust them in France's colonies.

If Louis XIII could have found a way to implement the terms of the Edict of Nantes in a way that did not inflame Protestant sentiment, leading to the 1620s rebellion, Richelieu's ban on Protestant emigration wouldn't have been necessary. Or perhaps the rebellion could have happened but the government would have been more forgiving after and rescinded the ban?

In any event, the ban on Protestant emigration affected both countries, because many of the Huguenots went to the English colonies instead. There were significant Huguenot communities in New York, Virginia, and the Carolinas. So the ban not only limited France's colonial population but bolstered England's.

 

[Malta]

My Vive Le Canads TL?

 

[Xgentis]

The POD should be in the early 1600s. It was in 1627 when Richelieu forbade all Protestant settlement in North America. Prior to that time, many (a majority?) of French settlers were Protestants, so this was a major change. Richelieu had a practical reason for this: he was then at war with the Huguenots in the southwest, who in turn were allied with the English, so he didn't trust them in France's colonies.

If Louis XIII could have found a way to implement the terms of the Edict of Nantes in a way that did not inflame Protestant sentiment, leading to the 1620s rebellion, Richelieu's ban on Protestant emigration wouldn't have been necessary. Or perhaps the rebellion could have happened but the government would have been more forgiving after and rescinded the ban?

In any event, the ban on Protestant emigration affected both countries, because many of the Huguenots went to the English colonies instead. There were significant Huguenot communities in New York, Virginia, and the Carolinas. So the ban not only limited France's colonial population but bolstered England's.

They were baned because they were not loyal to France if they were allowed to settle there France would kiss goodbye to their colony. No the government need to promote emigration to the colonies

 

[funnyhat]

They were baned because they were not loyal to France if they were allowed to settle there France would kiss goodbye to their colony. No the government need to promote emigration to the colonies

There were Huguenot colonists prior to 1627, and they remained loyal to France. Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons, for instance founded the first permanent French settlement in North America (Port-Royal).

The crown didn't regard them as disloyal until their rebellion in the 1620s. If that rebellion had never happened, presumably they would have been allowed to keep on colonizing North America.

 

[Hobelhouse]

The English colonies, among other things, exported food to the sugar colonies. But I don't think anyone in England made the effort to launch a colony foreseeing that that would be the major benefit!

Actually, South Carolina was founded by Barbadian planters who wanted to import rice, since Barbados grew little of its own food (sugar being more profitable). New France is farther from the French Caribbean than SC is from Barbados, and St. Domingue, France's primary colony, was a lot more self-sufficient. If France came to possess lots of small sugar islands and lost St. Domingue, though, it might be possible to see some trade.

 

[CalBear]

I cast thee back to the grave Zombie. With Earth and Salt I bind thee to rise no more!