What if New France was more heavily populated?

[Reflection]

During the period of Colonial America, France had claimed a much larger portion of land than Britain, but the flip side is that most of it was uninhabited by the French themselves (instead populated by Natives). While Britain's claim was smaller, it was much more heavily populated by settlers: 2.5 million British colonists vs. about 70,000 French colonists at its peak. Despite the vast amount of land seen above, the real strongholds of the French were Quebec in modern day Canada, and Louisiana in the American south. Other than that, the only real footprint left is that a bunch of cities and towns in the Midwest have French names without possessing a French identity (such as Detroit or St. Louis).

The reality was is that France saw their claim to the Americas as more of a business and military investment, then as a place to settle in large numbers. Indeed, it's said they never really cared that much about it, hence why they eventually forfeited their claim just to secure a few rocks in the Caribbean. That's why even if France won the French and Indian War, it's highly unlikely that they would be able to invade and conquer the British colonies, because they simply wouldn't have the manpower to do it.

But what if the New France settlements actually saw a much larger migration comparable to the British? What would it change to multiply the number of French colonists in these areas, and could that have happened?

 

[Paradoxer]

The British sent(“encouraged”/pressured) numerous dissenting or “unruly” groups from isles to new world. Georgia was prison colony before Australia was. The groups included people of Celtic origins(both Protestant and Catholics but mostly non Anglican Protestants in colonial era. Catholics come more during famine), various non Anglican Protestant sects(Puritans, Baptist, and etc), and just people labeled as criminals or poor.

France did not do this and didn’t want to depopulate its homeland like British did in its isles due to population bringing in taxes, royal ties, and levies. British have island for defense. But this ironically made France more unstable domestically because it got overpopulated(not self sustaining) and lead to more disgruntled groups and poor masses at home.

So all France needs is few kings who decide to encourage settlement of New France and deport criminals(or perceived ones like prostitutes or vagrants) plus rebellious groups(religious or ethnic) to these lands.

This can include French Protestants(Huguenots big one), Germans or Italians from their holdings, Brittany native ethnic, various sub ethnic groups in France especially in south who aren’t fully assimilated into northern cosmopolitan/metropolitan yet, welcome Jews from Eastern Europe and North Africa or export their own there, and finally poor masses of heartland. France population is much bigger then British and birth rates still high especially pre Revolution. This alone might put them good bit ahead of British on colonization and numbers and easy domestic issues while making growth on homeland stable

 

[Deleted member 147978]

During the period of Colonial America, France had claimed a much larger portion of land than Britain, but the flip side is that most of it was uninhabited by the French themselves (instead populated by Natives). While Britain's claim was smaller, it was much more heavily populated by settlers: 2.5 million British colonists vs. about 70,000 French colonists at its peak. Despite the vast amount of land seen above, the real strongholds of the French were Quebec in modern day Canada, and Louisiana in the American south. Other than that, the only real footprint left is that a bunch of cities and towns in the Midwest have French names without possessing a French identity (such as Detroit or St. Louis).

The reality was is that France saw their claim to the Americas as more of a business and military investment, then as a place to settle in large numbers. Indeed, it's said they never really cared that much about it, hence why they eventually forfeited their claim just to secure a few rocks in the Caribbean. That's why even if France won the French and Indian War, it's highly unlikely that they would be able to invade and conquer the British colonies, because they simply wouldn't have the manpower to do it.

But what if the New France settlements actually saw a much larger migration comparable to the British? What would it change to multiply the number of French colonists in these areas, and could that have happened?

Would Great Britain even dared to conquer heavily-populated New France if a war between the both of them happens?

 

[Paradoxer]

Would Great Britain even dared to conquer heavily-populated New France if a war between the both of them happens?

They conquered India. Probably be more indirect rule if they did those in this pod. Carve it up into dominions, settler colonies for less populated, and client/sub states if too overly populated and settled is my educated guess

 

[unprincipled peter]

New France was lost because Britain had a superior navy and prevented French military supply/reinforcement. The numerically superior colonist population of British North America played an ancillary role, but the military power that conquered New France was British, not colonial.

That said, a more populated New France would likely come with more ability to play a larger ancillary role for France. Perhaps a more fortified Acadia would be able to hold on to the mouth of St Lawrence and/or allow French resupply. New France can live on.

Or, should NF still be conquered, the British have a much larger French population to placate.

Timing of French-British colonial war may vary. A larger French population means an earlier encroachment on disputed borders. Ohio may be French populated and provoke a war. French and Indian War came at a time very propitious for Britain, which is why they were so aggressive in asserting British claims, leading to the war. Maybe you bump the war to coincide with the War of Austrian Succession. France is in much better position, so they might win this war.

One scenario is that New France lives on, and rapidly grows in population. OTL, growth rate was quite good, doubling in size every 20 years. If we assume stalemate, you have France holding on to much of Acadia/New Brunswick, as well as most of the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys. OTL, they had the largest presence, but it was small. If we assume a larger population, France is in possession. This hems in the 13 colonies.

France would NOT look to conquer and occupy the 13 British colonies. War aims were to settle the disputed border favorably. This held for both sides, OTL. Britain didn't start out looking to absorb all of New France. They were looking to carve out a huge disputed area. The war went supremely for them and they ended up with Canada. BNA was much too populated to have a wholesale annexation of them. An alt war here leaves New France in place. If France does well, they get most of the disputed region. If they do poorly, they lose those regions.

The geopolitical situation changes. France still has New France - New Spain border disputes with Spain. There is still going to be friction with the 13 colonies, although this will diminish if borders are definitively set. Depending on whether Britain antagonizes the 13, the American Revolution may still occur. I don't think New France by itself was a deterrent to revolution. British Canada was a much greater threat, and the Patriots still rebelled. France and Spain may be less inclined to support the rebellion, which would put a severe damper on its chances of success.

And, those 'few rocks' in the Caribbean were very valuable sugar islands.

 

[da Racontor]

New France was lost because Britain had a superior navy and prevented French military supply/reinforcement. The numerically superior colonist population of British North America played an ancillary role, but the military power that conquered New France was British, not colonial.

While this was probably the largest single reason it wasn't the only one.

One that a lot of people forget is the switch in tactics. Early in the war the French were using the Native American inspired tactics that favored hit-and-run combat and small skirmishes. While the British wanted to engage in large European style pitched battles. And the French were winning the early stages. During the war however the commanders for North America for both countries changed and they essentially swapped tactics and who was winning.

 

[Reflection]

And, those 'few rocks' in the Caribbean were very valuable sugar islands.

Oh, yeah, I already knew that.

 

[unprincipled peter]

While this was probably the largest single reason it wasn't the only one.

One that a lot of people forget is the switch in tactics. Early in the war the French were using the Native American inspired tactics that favored hit-and-run combat and small skirmishes. While the British wanted to engage in large European style pitched battles. And the French were winning the early stages. During the war however the commanders for North America for both countries changed and they essentially swapped tactics and who was winning.

I agree.
Could the early tactics succeed, though? It seemed a case of do the best with what you have and harass the enemy. The French were continually losing this war of attrition and I don't see long term victory unless French can resupply. French were losing native support when they could no longer pay tribute/bribery. I think the French could have held out longer with better tactics/strategy, but France, in general, what getting whooped all over the world. The best New France could hope for, in similar OTL conditions was to hold on as a colony (s) greatly reduced in claimed size. If we stipulate a greater populated New France, they may be able to hold out a stalemate long enough to come out of the fray battered, but still holding on to sizeable territory.

With a greater population/colonial strategy, you may see a France with a better naval situation.

 

[da Racontor]

I agree.
Could the early tactics succeed, though? It seemed a case of do the best with what you have and harass the enemy. The French were continually losing this war of attrition and I don't see long term victory unless French can resupply. French were losing native support when they could no longer pay tribute/bribery. I think the French could have held out longer with better tactics/strategy, but France, in general, what getting whooped all over the world. The best New France could hope for, in similar OTL conditions was to hold on as a colony (s) greatly reduced in claimed size. If we stipulate a greater populated New France, they may be able to hold out a stalemate long enough to come out of the fray battered, but still holding on to sizeable territory.

With a greater population/colonial strategy, you may see a France with a better naval situation.

The French strategy all depended on the European theatre. So the plan in New France was just to hold on long enough for France to force an end to the war from the European theatre. Could the tactics on their own even with a bigger population win the war, I don't think so. But they may not have to to make a big change. More population means more militia which was one of the backbones of the early tactics. If they can delay the conquest of New France long enough for the war to end normally even if France looses I don't thing Britain is going find spending enough diplomatic capital at the treaty to annex such a large area for just the fur trade and sticking to the French.

A greater could (but not always) mean the are may be more self-sufficient. And if the area was less dependent on the French Navy for supplies those ship could be elsewhere.

 

[Jürgen]

Honestly while French people weren’t much for migrating to New France, a solution could be to heavy recruit among German Catholics, especially French allies like Bavaria and Cologne.

 

[da Racontor]

Honestly while French people weren’t much for migrating to New France, a solution could be to heavy recruit among German Catholics, especially French allies like Bavaria and Cologne.

Not a bad idea, there are also a lot of Irish and Scottish jacobites around that might go

 

[Jürgen]

Not a bad idea, there are also a lot of Irish and Scottish around that might go

I suspect that England will limit mass migration of these groups, at least to a hostile state and at least before the 19th century. The Irish Catholic voluntary emigration we see before 1800 seems pretty much limited to the rich. Population was in general seen as a important resources and emigration was usual restricted, it was only smaller state which allowed large scale emigration, which is why as example see pre-1800 German emigrant being dominated by Hessians, Rhinelanders and Swabians.

 

[da Racontor]

There were plenty of prominent Irish and Scottish émigrée outside of Britain at the time. Enough in OTL to have a major impact probably not but if word of a safe place for them to go got out I would be suprized if more would leave their homeland.

If you are ok with it, I would like to add this idea to one of my timelines when I get back to working on it. It would need to be modified but can still work.

 

[Slime_blob]

Indeed, it's said they never really cared that much about it, hence why they eventually forfeited their claim just to secure a few rocks in the Caribbean.

"Prior to the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the economy of Saint-Domingue gradually expanded, with sugar and, later, coffee becoming important export crops. After the war, which disrupted maritime commerce, the colony underwent rapid expansion. In 1767, it exported 72 million pounds of raw sugar and 51 million pounds of refined sugar, one million pounds of indigo, and two million pounds of cotton"

As you can see, Saint Domingue is the richest colony of the world, if not only the carribean, and those sugar islands are the real money makers, so they should instead focus to send their manpower in their sugar islands to secure it more

 

[Reflection]

"Prior to the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the economy of Saint-Domingue gradually expanded, with sugar and, later, coffee becoming important export crops. After the war, which disrupted maritime commerce, the colony underwent rapid expansion. In 1767, it exported 72 million pounds of raw sugar and 51 million pounds of refined sugar, one million pounds of indigo, and two million pounds of cotton"

As you can see, Saint Domingue is the richest colony of the world, if not only the carribean, and those sugar islands are the real money makers, so they should instead focus to send their manpower in their sugar islands to secure it more

Hey man, I already knew they were super valuable. I just thought it was kinda funny how all that vast, vast land was happily dropped to get a few tiny islands if you know what I mean.

 

[Jürgen]

"Prior to the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the economy of Saint-Domingue gradually expanded, with sugar and, later, coffee becoming important export crops. After the war, which disrupted maritime commerce, the colony underwent rapid expansion. In 1767, it exported 72 million pounds of raw sugar and 51 million pounds of refined sugar, one million pounds of indigo, and two million pounds of cotton"

As you can see, Saint Domingue is the richest colony of the world, if not only the carribean, and those sugar islands are the real money makers, so they should instead focus to send their manpower in their sugar islands to secure it more

They may have been valuable, but you gain nothing by sending more Europeans to the sugar islands, the value from them comes from African labor. New France may have been a lot less valuable, but it was more strategic valuable as a more densely populated New France would have forced the British to use more resources in their North American colonies to defend them against France.

 

[X Oristos]

They may have been valuable, but you gain nothing by sending more Europeans to the sugar islands, the value from them comes from African labor. New France may have been a lot less valuable, but it was more strategic valuable as a more densely populated New France would have forced the British to use more resources in their North American colonies to defend them against France.

Indeed!

There is also the synergy of the two colonies as one could be complimentary to the other. Colbert had realized that New France could provide the Sugar Islands with grain. salted meat, dried peas etc. There is also the britsh cod trade, where the low quality saltfish was exported to the Carribean plantations. These opportunities were known in OTL. As I see it, the main problem were the wars of Louis XIV. Almost no new settlers arrived after 1670. Even an additional decade of peace or limited wars at least, would have helped.

Other than that, the colonists in New France would have been hard-pressed to imitate New England's prosperity based on exporting cod and importing molasses to be turned into rum for exportation. The brandy lobby in France was powerful and in OTL was able to limit the rum production even in the french Sugar Islands. So, the Canadiens would find it very unlikely to be able to produce rum.

 

[Jürgen]

Indeed!

There is also the synergy of the two colonies as one could be complimentary to the other. Colbert had realized that New France could provide the Sugar Islands with grain. salted meat, dried peas etc. There is also the britsh cod trade, where the low quality saltfish was exported to the Carribean plantations. These opportunities were known in OTL. As I see it, the main problem were the wars of Louis XIV. Almost no new settlers arrived after 1670. Even an additional decade of peace or limited wars at least, would have helped.

Other than that, the colonists in New France would have been hard-pressed to imitate New England's prosperity based on exporting cod and importing molasses to be turned into rum for exportation. The brandy lobby in France was powerful and in OTL was able to limit the rum production even in the french Sugar Islands. So, the Canadiens would find it very unlikely to be able to produce rum.

It should ber said because of New France geography the synergy is inferior to that of BNA and British Caribbean, especially because any French colonization will be centered on the St. Lawrence foremost.

 

[X Oristos]

It should ber said because of New France geography the synergy is inferior to that of BNA and British Caribbean, especially because any French colonization will be centered on the St. Lawrence foremost.

I am not so sure. The british commerical triangle was based in New England, a region with similar climate to the St. Lawrence valley. Virginia and its tobacco was not that important in that network.

The St Lawrence valley could produce surplus flour to send down south and the cost of moving a barrel of flour from Quebec/Montreal to Saint-Dominique is not that higher than flour from Boston to Jamaica. Both North American colonies are equally privileged when it came to cheap protein (cod). Moreover, Acadia was uniquely suitable to provide salted beef, from the cattle grazing marsh hay in the dykeland. Lastly, New France would have been an excellent source of timber for the forest-depleted sugar islands.

 

[Amon34]

here is a story that might help new france