The French and Indian War Ends in 1759?

[Faeelin]

After the fall of Quebec and Montreal in 1759, Pitt was willing to make peace with France, including returning Quebec. Pitt's terms saw the acquisition of the Ohio Country, Niagra, and the Great Lakes region as nonnegotiable, but he would return most of New France.

Why? Well, for one, he was worried about Spanish entry into the war; as it stands, it had been a bloody, prolonged conflict.

Equally important was the fact that Britain's Prussian ally was getting slaughtered; Pitt was hoping to balance the return of New France with a peace that preserved Prussia.

There is precedent for such a swap; in 1748, Louisberg was returned to France under the Treaty of Axi-la-Chapelle in return for France's withdrawal from the Low Countries.

Effects? On the one hand, I don't think Britain would be as willing to restrain colonial expansion westward; fears of a resurgent France expanding once again will still be there. On the other hand, colonials will be unhappy that once again, their conquest has been swapped for thirty acres of European potato farms. The Prussian-British alliance will still be intact, however, but Spain won't take the blows (and impetus for reform itreceived) during the Seven Years War.

 

[vitemajoren]

I cannot see why they would be unhappy, they after all
started the wholw 7 years war in the first place, but it would
perhaps lead to an earlier revolt against the mothercountry,
if so would France back them that shortly after the last war?
Keeping in mind that all the European alliances would activate
since the British-Prussian alliance would still exist.

 

[mrmandias]

The conventional wisdom is that the colonials were a lot more willing to buck London once the French menace was gone, so this POD will certainly have effects on Anglo-American relations. Also does this POD reduce the total British war debt by quite a bit and therefore reduce the need to extract cash from the colonies? if so, the ball is definitely being kicked decade(s) down the road.

 

[Admiral Matt]

Hrm....

So New France is cut in half. Quebec plus most of Ontario on the one hand, Louisiana and the old Southwest on the other. Florida remains Spanish. It'll also mean change in the Caribbean and India, dunno where things stood then.

What's in it for France, though? In hindsight it's a much better deal, but they're winning against Prussia at the time and didn't value Canada so much as all that historically.

 

[Faeelin]

Hrm....
What's in it for France, though? In hindsight it's a much better deal, but they're winning against Prussia at the time and didn't value Canada so much as all that historically.

They're winning, but they also don't want to see Russia emerge too strong, which would be a danger. They've lost the war at sea, both in India (Plassey, which IMO cannot be reversed), and in Canada.

While not as important as Quebec later beacme, it was still significant, and the Newfoundland fisheries were viewed as the nursery of the French navy.

I cannot see why they would be unhappy, they after all started the wholw 7 years war in the first place, but it would
perhaps lead to an earlier revolt against the mothercountry,
if so would France back them that shortly after the last war?
Keeping in mind that all the European alliances would activate
since the British-Prussian alliance would still exist.

The colonials launched an invasion of Prussia? Interesting . But there would be the issue of what their gains had been.

 

[Beedok]

I don't see the Canadians giving up so easily, after all the British were starving due to having burned all the crops in the Quebec region, so how would they get to Montreal?

 

[Faeelin]

I don't see the Canadians giving up so easily, after all the British were starving due to having burned all the crops in the Quebec region, so how would they get to Montreal?

I mean, they occupied it in 1760 and its loss was a foregone conclusion after the fall of Quebec?

 

[Beedok]

I mean, they occupied it in 1760 and its loss was a foregone conclusion after the fall of Quebec?

But in OTL Quebec war retaken by forces from Montreal, yet the French still let Canada go even though it was winning against all ods and having retaken it's capital. The Americans would have to be a lot better organised to take Montreal overland, and the British had to leave due to ice so a river attack won't work.

 

[Faeelin]

But in OTL Quebec war retaken by forces from Montreal, yet the French still let Canada go even though it was winning against all ods and having retaken it's capital. The Americans would have to be a lot better organised to take Montreal overland, and the British had to leave due to ice so a river attack won't work.

Sure, sorry. I just meant in general a 1760 peace treaty along those terms. I see what you're saying. Although I'd note the French did not retake Quebec in 1760, if that's what you're saying.

 

[Beedok]

Sure, sorry. I just meant in general a 1760 peace treaty along those terms. I see what you're saying. Although I'd note the French did not retake Quebec in 1760, if that's what you're saying.

I take it that's one of the PODs correct?

 

[Faeelin]

I take it that's one of the PODs correct?

I don't think so? Nothing I've found says the French retook Quebec in 1760; they just laid siege to it and were forced back when reinforcements arrived.

 

[Thande]

It's hard to predict how the Americans would react to this. On the one hand they'd get pissed off at Quebec being handed back...on the other hand, they got damn pissed off about handing back Louisbourg after the War of the Austrian Succession, and nothing came of that. Although it would speed an american national awakening in some ways, to my mind it makes the American Revolution less likely because the fear of France at their backs and the need for British troops remains.

If Prussia is saved by a British treaty, Frederick II is less of a war genius figure, Prussia has less prestige, Austria might get back Silesia, etc. Also the position of Tsar Paul III in Russia will be more secure because he won't be thought of as the one who swapped sides against the national interest just because he liked the Prussians.

I know most of that off heart because it's similar to events in my own TL...

Another question is India and whether the French get anything back there.

The Spanish/Portuguese participation is averted, and the question is whether a Hispano-Portuguese conflict over disputes in South America is still going to happen on its own or not.

Also, without the attack on Havana and the massive deaths from tropical diseases, the British Army will be in a lot better state in the near future than it was in OTL.

 

[Beedok]

I don't think so? Nothing I've found says the French retook Quebec in 1760; they just laid siege to it and were forced back when reinforcements arrived.

Right, I'd misremembered things, I kknew they had defeated the British, but then the Brits did hold the city because France had abandoned them. Sorry.

 

[Thande]

Thinking about this some more, it occurs to me that pretty much all the Indians (feathers not turbans) will become pro-French after this, as British/American settlers swamp the Ohio Country while the French presence remains free of many settlers outside Quebec.

Then of course there's the fact that Quebec remaining French means British authorities don't have to compromise with Catholicism and blocking off settlement.

That removes two of the things that most pissed off the Americans and started the American Revolution. There will still be anger about handing back Quebec, but it strikes me that American nationalist demands in such a scenario will focus on the right to elect MPs and send them to Westminster so they can influence future negotiations over territory - rather than wanting self-rule. This was somewhat true even of the early American Revolution in OTL, but will be even more emphasised here.

 

[Faeelin]

That removes two of the things that most pissed off the Americans and started the American Revolution. There will still be anger about handing back Quebec, but it strikes me that American nationalist demands in such a scenario will focus on the right to elect MPs and send them to Westminster so they can influence future negotiations over territory - rather than wanting self-rule. This was somewhat true even of the early American Revolution in OTL, but will be even more emphasised here.

I'm a bit surprised. I've never heard that Americans were demanding their own ministers in Parliament.

 

[stevep]

I'm a bit surprised. I've never heard that Americans were demanding their own ministers in Parliament.

Faeelin

I know you get the references to 'no taxation without representation' but think that's generally accepted as propaganda that the rebels weren't serious about.

However I think, while there would be resentment at returning the gains in Canada, as Thande said that leaves the French as a threat there and across the Mississippi so the Americans are less likely to object to contributing to their defence.

Presuming some over-reaching deal was made along the lines suggested then there would be impacts, especially depending on how the borders change or not in Europe as well. If Austria successfully regains Silesia that will have a huge impact on the future, as may the shorter war and lack of any ARW in delaying the financial problems in France.

I have read, albeit some time back, that Pitt was pretty contemptuous of the 'threat' of Spain joining the conflict because of it's relatively weak economy. Especially after the big naval victories in 59 which pretty much secured both Britain and domination of the wider Oceans for the duration of the conflict.

Steve

 

[DuQuense]

The capital was transferred to Biloxi in 1720 and remained there until 1723 when it was moved to New Orleans.

When the Spanish took over in 1763, they complained that - "the town was nothing but a few wooden huts, in the middle of a swamp. connected by mud the French called streets".
I doubt if the french holding New Orleans after the war would cause the french to invest the millions the Spanish did in Building a major city,

So ITTL the settlers that went into Florida 1763 - 1783 would instead go into [southern] Western Georgia [Georgia claimed west to the Mississippi].
Instead Whe would continue with run away slaves escaping to Florida.
The Slaves in Florida, and the Settlers in British Western Georgia/ Spanish West Florida [overlapping claims], would maintain British/Spanish tensions in the region.

In the North whe would have more settlers/development in the Ohio Valley.
No Formal 1763 Line, but inbetween [Tennessee, west SCarolina, North western Georgia] the two thrusts west, much less settlement.

So in the 1780's as Britian and France again prepare for war, the Americans in the NE look North to Canada,
While the Americans in Ohio look south down the Mississippi, and the Americans in the South along the Flordia border look east to the little town of New Orleans.