More than likely this would have been their most successful strategy, one where France allows settlers to move down the Saint Lawrence and into the more fertile areas of Southern Ontario, and from there into the Great Lakes region and then southwards. It really would not have been a huge demographic burden on France, but the French Crown did not want any settlement West of Montreal and therefore the colony stagnated. By the mid-XIX century the lack of land meant that French-Canadians began migrating in droves to the mill towns of New England and to Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Why did the French ever extensively settle Louisiana the way they did Quebec?
- Thread starter SuperCanada
- Start date
More than likely this would have been their most successful strategy, one where France allows settlers to move down the Saint Lawrence and into the more fertile areas of Southern Ontario, and from there into the Great Lakes region and then southwards. It really would not have been a huge demographic burden on France, but the French Crown did not want any settlement West of Montreal and therefore the colony stagnated. By the mid-XIX century the lack of land meant that French-Canadians began migrating in droves to the mill towns of New England and to Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
unprincipled peter
Donor
French settlement of Illinois/Michigan region got underway in the late 17th century. Lack of major settlement was more a case of lack of settlers in New France than restrictive policy. If more settlers had migrated to New France, you'd see more migration into the interior.
French exploration and trade into the interior of North America was undertaken in the XVII century, but no real attempt to settle the lands between Montreal and Natchez with settlers was undertaken. With the exception of Sainte-Genevieve none of these settlements in the interior were agricultural settlements of the sort found in the Saint-Lawrence River Valley. When Detroit was founded, for instance, all men going including artisans had to have a justifiable reason for being necessary to building a fort in the region before being allowed to move there. It was to remain a military and trading outpost, nothing more.
During his tenure as Minister of the Marine, Jean-Baptiste Colbert had originally banned settlement west of Montreal because for various reasons. Firstly, to keep men in the valley where labour was scarce and on the seigneuries they were obliged to build roads, join the militia and partake in useful activities so that the colony could become self-sufficient. Secondly, the French Crown wanted to control the fur trade, and did not want men escaping control of the state to sell their own furs. The inland fur trade did expand but even famed explorer, Louis Jolliet was rebuffed when he proposed settling in Illinois Country. As a result, several forts and trading posts dotted the interior, but no large scale settlements were undertaken. It is interesting to note that the British Crown sought to maintain this policy with the Royal Proclamation of 1763.
unprincipled peter
Donor
I stand corrected.
I wonder the effect on geopolitics if the French had instituted a policy of settlement throughout New France. OTL, there was competition between France and England/Britain for fishing , furs, and native trade, but no real competition for land. There was certain a lot of disputed territory, but until the 7YW, neither side made any move to settle it, nor any need, as even the British had plenty of undisputed land available for settlement. It was only with the rising population of New France, at a time of French weakness (worn out by the War of Austrian Succession) that Britain decided they needed to act now, or be at a disadvantage in painting that portion of the map in British colors. If you move up the time table, and have France somewhat aggressively settling New France, conflict is going to arise much sooner. If France gets assertive in northern Maine and Acadia, you have a hotspot for British/French conflict.
7YW strategy was a change for the British. During this war, France remained focused in Europe. Britain put the focus on paying others to engage France in Europe, while British military efforts concentrated on the colonial sphere, including North America. In an earlier age, there's no guarantee that different statesmen duplicate OTL. France may, for instance, put resources into a navy. Ability to supply Canada would have led to stalemate in North America in 7YW, IMO.
When does the colonial conflict occur, assuming for arguments sake that the OTL major wars happen as OTL? In War of Spanish Succession and WoAS, Britain has too much at stake in Europe to get side tracked in NA. Perhaps in an analogous War of Jenkins Ear? This was a colonial conflict, as was the 7YW (more properly the French and Indian War, which predated and, IMO, was the starting point for 7YW). Perhaps we see a more extensive Spain/France vs Britain, with France doing just enough to sidetrack Austria in its war with Prussia.
You also have to consider the native/European politics. OTL, many natives sided with France as France did not displace them. Settlers are going to displace and interrupt that dynamic. The Natchez Massacre might not be such an isolated incident. You also have to account for an increased French presence to oppose the Iroquois. What would it take for the French to more positively neutralize the Iroquois in the Beaver Wars? OTL, Britain had 2 seemingly invincible allies in the Iroquois and the Chickasaw. France could never overcome them. Would this change with a more assertive French presence?
auto-correct sucks, doesn't it...
I saw this, but decided to let it pass... all I could do not to throw a reference to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi into the mix though! Wow, I didn't know that many settlers were sent to Louisiana. If they had been sent to Canada instead, we are probably talking about a population there of over 100K by the Seven Years War and it might be more secure from invasion.
Last edited:
And would the Eastern terminus of a transcendental rail road be Fairfield, IA. (Sorry, couldn't help myself).
Lusitania
Donor
The French settlement of New France was very low with who de aces of no new settlers and even only few hundred in best years. If it had been done a few thousand 1-2,000 max per year. This probably include many from prisons and woman who had lost their way. If this done year after year and settlement allowed to expand west of Montreal New France could been a force to contend with for the British snd been a hard if not impossible nut to crack.
I think that it could of had potential to have population of between 500,000 and million and stretched to Great Lakes thus linking up with French Louisiana.
That huge colony could stayed French in 7 year war and with enemy on other side of mountains wonder if people in 13 colonies would been more supportive of paying for British troops in the colonies.
I think that it could of had potential to have population of between 500,000 and million and stretched to Great Lakes thus linking up with French Louisiana.
That huge colony could stayed French in 7 year war and with enemy on other side of mountains wonder if people in 13 colonies would been more supportive of paying for British troops in the colonies.
Maybe if colonization starts with the same number of settlers but earlier (one generation earlier and population is doubled) same effect could be achieved?
Lusitania
Donor
I don’t think so. To have 120,000 people in Quebec and not allowing settlement west of Montreal not going to give New France the strength I portrayed. Plus even at 1,000 a year would not of taxed France. Better if closer to 2,000 a year from 1609 to 1760s.
With an extra 300,000 or so immigrants over that period, plus natural growth, I wouldn't be surprised if New France would rival (or even exceed) the population of British North America by the 1760. There might well have been multiple colonial provinces established to administer it.
The British aren't going to be able to conquer that in a hurry, and the British colonists are going to be very apprehensive.
Meanwhile, France is going to sour relations with the natives from such an influx. They are going to be trapped between French settlers on one side and British settlers on the other.
formion
Banned
For that you need to avoid the expensive wars of Louis XIV and a different approach of Colbert in terms of trade
If you would ask in this thread how to strengthen the New France economy, most people will answer what actually Colbert had in mind: provide naval stores to France and food to the sugar islands. A statesman of Colbert's caliber had thought of that. However, there was one problem to develop a triangular trade similar to that of New England: rum. French sugar planters wanted to send rum to Canada in order to get grain, salted beef/pork and dried peas. Now, the mercantilists in France should have welcomed such move. The problem was that rum was competitive to french brandy. And the very strong brandy lobby in France wanted the North American market as brandy was utilized in the fur trade. In the end, the brandy lobby won.
Moreover, as was mentioned before multiple times in similar threads, Canada had a dreadful reputation with its harsh winters. Colbert was an excellent organizer and loved numbers. I wonder if he ever came across of specific statistics such as cattle per household and fodder availability. In such case, there is the possibility that the government could come across with better propaganda, advertizing the abundance of animals, the huge supply of firewood that kept the hearths burning more often compared to France and the nice pasturage across the river bank of the seigneurie.
Lastly, if Quebec received few settlers and governmental support, Acadia got even less. What a missed opportunity! The original settlers of Acadia were from Poitou and were accustomed to land reclaiming. The extensive salt marshes of Acadia provided heavenly pasturage. After the Acadians managed to raise their dykes, they created prime agricultural land. There you could settle people in the coastline, where they wouldn't need to clear boreal forest to plant crops. Clearing the forest was a back-breaking job that took several seasons and more time was needed for the roots to rot. Acadia could become a prime exporter of salt beef to the sugar islands. If I remember correctly it indeed exported beef, but not in a grand scale.
Lastly, Colbert tried to settle Newfoundland. He did what he could with Placentia and recognized the importance of the island. To have a settled french Newfoundland, I think two policies are needed: firstly for Colbert to give much more importance on the iberian markets. The Iberians really appreciated salted and dried cod, not just "green cod" where the fish was thrown in barrels with salt right after catching without drying first. Such product would need the French to focus more on the inshore fishery and have more fishermen living permanently in Newfoundland. After all, Colbert wanted specie to come in France and not leave if possible. Now, the English traded their cod for merino wool and portuguese wines. Merino wool may be desired by the French and certainly cork, However, even so it would leave the Iberians in a trade imbalance that would have to be covered with silver: Colbert is now happier.
Secondly, as we very well know, Newfoundland is terrible for agriculture. However, it seems to me that Newfoundland could have become a prime sheep country. I am sure the Quebecois and Acadiens would appreciate more wool imports. The same goes for France, so as build up the textile industry -as Colbert wanted.
Last edited:
The French might very well have won the Battle on the Plaines of Abraham. If they had the war would've gone on longer. The long term odds would still be in Britain's favor, but France would still have a fighting chance.
unprincipled peter
Donor
With a massive POD of France putting real effort into New France, there will be no F&I war as we know it. It may be a different year, and the geopolitical may be different, and France will be different with a colonial outlook (like maybe a real navy). One cannot simply transpose OTL battles/strategy onto an ATL war. This doesn't mean that the situation is automatically favorable for France, or less onerous. It might be, or it might not, but the direction/execution of the war will be different, and thus battles will not be the same ones as OTL.
That's another Canadian historical oddity. You'd think Canadians would have taken up sheep-raising big time for all the warm wool they produce and lots of land that is unsuitable for agriculture.
formion
Banned
Yeah, that perplexes me as well.
Perhaps it had to do with the terrain? The St Lawrence banks had good fodder, but the timberlands were rather bad for sheep farming. A better place for sheep farming would have been PEI, where there was an abundance of salt marsh hay. The same goes for Nova Scotia. In both places the sheep would compete with cattle. Newfoundland however would have been a poor cattle country. Sheep races raised in islands with limited pasturage, e.g. Shetland, may have thrived in Newfoundland.