What if: In 1763 France surrenders Saint Domingue, but retains Canada?

[sahaidak]

Of course, such action was unlikely - Saint Domingue was richest French colony, and Canada was quite poor comparing with that sugar island. However, even more successful British campaign in the Caribbean could end with capture of French colonies in this region. Maybe, facing complete disaster in America, Louis XV might agree to British demands in Caribbean, obtaining return of Canada?
In such case, how British colonists would react at peace treaty? Would they become more loyal (because French threat would continue to exist), or, quite opposite, they would rebel against government London (because it did not defend colonists' interests at the table of negotiations)?
Would France intervene in the British-American conflict, using its base in Quebec?
If yes, on whose side would the French fight?
Would French-speaking Canada extend its borders, include Manitoba or even Louisiana?

 

[David S Poepoe]

Britain will probably end up occupying Quebec in the end. The continued presence of France will most likely keep the America colonies in line and probably create a greater headache for London with their requests for moving westward. In the long term, at least thru the 1850s, unless there is a major change in French colonial settling the Ohio Valley will see a steady stream of British settlers moving in.

 

[fhaessig]

The first things that come to mind are :
+ France keeps not only Canada but also Louisiana ( no way it's going to keep Canada and cede Louisiana to Spain ). In time both are linked. Mississipi is a french river. British north America is cointained on the Atlantic side of the Appalachia. More immigration to french North America ( not only from France )
+ definitely no US independence war or even claim.
+ French revolution is likely delayed by a few years ( say half a dozen ). Napoleon likely goes to work for the Ottoman empire.
+ French slavery lobby is way more feeble than OTL, Uk one, strengthened.

 

[Ace Venom]

Someone has to lose something. Britain may very well take St. Dominque from the French without question, but you could expect Guadeloupe and Martinique to be part of the package deal. You also can eliminate the dispute over Acadia as the French would once again confirm that it is British Territory.

You're dealing with a minor exchange of territory here, but the sugar islands are seen as more valuable at the time. The British may very well take the deal that involves the French trading off their Caribbean possessions in exchange for continued control over Canada and Louisiana. There will probably be a "set" boundary to avoid further border disputes, which really involves the exchange of a handful of forts here and there.

The repercussions of such a deal are obvious. Though the British will still tax their North American subjects, they can use the fact that the French are still just across the border as a counterbalance to any revolutionist fervor. Something like the Sons of Liberty will pop up, but I don't see them gaining as much favor as Loyalists will dominate. Nova Scotia and Florida will become colonies #14 and #15 in this scenario.

 

[DuQuense]

Note that there was a war with France every 15~20 years thru out the late 16~1700's. I doubt if 1763 would be the last of them.
Britain will take Canada and Louisiana in the 1780's War with France. The British/American Settlement pattern was bound to see BA win in North America.

 

[fhaessig]

Note that there was a war with France every 15~20 years thru out the late 16~1700's. I doubt if 1763 would be the last of them.
Britain will take Canada and Louisiana in the 1780's War with France. The British/American Settlement pattern was bound to see BA win in North America.

Not if there is a french revolution first and the slaves are freed in all colonies and offered a homestake in French North America. BNA will never break this. and won't want to. Adn it's even worse if Republican France follows the original Roman definition of colon. which is likely, imo.

 

[DuQuense]

Not if there is a french revolution first and the slaves are freed in all colonies and offered a homestake in French North America

With France having won, I doubt a Revolution.
France will not free the Slaves, In the 1770's French courts were still upholding the Owning of Indian Slaves, and there is Haiti in the early 1800's For Examples of French ideas of Freed slaves.

 

[fhaessig]

With France having won, I doubt a Revolution.

Given the late Bourbon France societal and taxation structure, a revolution is unavoidable. It may be moved a dozen years in one direction or another, but I doubt more, unless societal freeze is completely destroyed.

France will not free the Slaves, In the 1770's French courts were still upholding the Owning of Indian Slaves, and there is Haiti in the early 1800's For Examples of French ideas of Freed slaves.

And look at what Revolutionary France did.

Republican France provided full citizenship to all free blacks in 1792, abolished slavery in Saint-Domingue in 1793 and completely in 1794, seated black representatives in the Convention and had at least one black, ex-slave, general ( whose son later became a famous writer ), in France proper ( and Italy and Egypt ), in command of white troops. When can any other country claim the same?

End of 'skin aristocracy' was an integral part of the revolutionary and enlightenment discourse in France ( see Montesquieu, Voltaire, encyclopedie, Rousseau.... on the subject ) and was seen as the natural evolution of the french ending of privileges and gaining of freedom. Basically any PoD which sees a release of societal freeze in France will eventually see end of slavery ( and any which don't will result in violent revolution ).

Reestablishment of slavery was done by Napoleon under influance of Josephine's planter lobby. ANy butterflies which removes Napoleon from power ( such as a change of date ) - or Josephine - removes the restablishment of slavery. The only case in which slavery can be reinstated is when a dictatorship is established and the dictator has a reason or is influanced to reestablish it. It happened OTL, but it's pretty low probability.

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

There would be no American Revolution means that Louisiana area would remained French. The borders of British American colonies would be fixed and would not expand.

 

[Tocomocho]

Maybe, facing complete disaster in America, Louis XV might agree to British demands in Caribbean, obtaining return of Canada?

A fairly easy POD for this would be Ferdinand VI of Spain living a bit longer. As he advocated non intervention, Spain would have not join the war in 1761 as IOTL so the British attacks on Cuba would be directed against Haiti. Moreover, the French would probably have surrended a bit earlier too.

However, by this time Britain has already conquered Canada so I'm afraid they could just retain all their conquests.

 

[fhaessig]

A fairly easy POD for this would be Ferdinand VI of Spain living a bit longer. As he advocated non intervention, Spain would have not join the war in 1761 as IOTL so the British attacks on Cuba would be directed against Haiti. Moreover, the French would probably have surrended a bit earlier too.

However, by this time Britain has already conquered Canada so I'm afraid they could just retain all their conquests.

If the fre,ch are more successfull in India, England will give something back in exchange.

 

[sahaidak]

Supposing that: a. French revolution was prevented or at least delayed with unexistence of American Independence War; b. France could avoid Napoleonic wars; c. consequently, Louisiana remains French through 19th century,
there are two main possibilities for British-Americans:
1. Immigrate into French possessions more or less legally, integrate into dominant French-speaking and Catholic culture;
2. Immigrate without French government's permission, establish their own institutions, and finally rebel against central government.
Latter option would be similar to the Texas situation in OTL. However, ability of British-American colonies, or, moreover, imperial government in London, to assist rebels (as did the USA in the Texas case) is another problem.
Former option requires much stronger French presence in their American colonies. Incidentally, higher emigration from France could alleviate social pressure in France proper and help to stabilize ancien regime.
However, if New France/Greater Canada would develop as fast as the OTL USA, conflict between colonists and centralist government in Paris seems inevitable. Final result could be Canadian Independence War, in which Canadians would be assisted by British troops, as Americans in OTL were assisted by the French.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

There would be no American Revolution means that Louisiana area would remained French.

Spanish, actually.

 

[sahaidak]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Solis in Australia
There would be no American Revolution means that Louisiana area would remained French.
Spanish, actually.

Foundation of New Orleans - 1718
Cahokia (first French settlement in St. Louis area) - 1699
Spain had legal title on Louisiana (excluding New Orleans and nearby areas), but France was real possessor, as far as Europeans concerned. Spain was weaker partner in Bourbon coalition, and it could be forced to cede Louisiana to France whenever Paris would need such cession.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Foundation of New Orleans - 1718
Cahokia (first French settlement in St. Louis area) - 1699
Spain had legal title on Louisiana (excluding New Orleans and nearby areas), but France was real possessor, as far as Europeans concerned. Spain was weaker partner in Bourbon coalition, and it could be forced to cede Louisiana to France whenever Paris would need such cession.

Could you please read the bloody article before trying to give me a history lesson?

 

[DuQuense]

Supposing that: a. French revolution was prevented or at least delayed with unexistence of American Independence War; b. France could avoid Napoleonic wars; c. consequently, Louisiana remains French through 19th century,

Spanish, actually.

according to the OP whe don't know if Spain gets Louisiana. Britain must have done something that made France think Louisiana, was about to be taken.

?Intill whe know how close this Alt TL is to ours as regards Louisiana???
The negotiations to end the war were different,

What happened in the Anglo/French war of 178?.?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

according to the OP whe don't know if Spain gets Louisiana.

France gave up Louisiana before the Treaty of Paris, though it kept the transfer a secret for a while.

I don't know why you would expect France to keep it. That's a major change from OTL and nobody's mentioned it so far. According to the OP we don't know if George III didn't choke to death on a piece of meat a week after the treaty, but since it wasn't brought up it's safe to assume it didn't happen.

Britain must have done something that made France think Louisiana, was about to be taken.

According to the OP the British were more successful and that only makes a Spanish Louisiana more likely.