WI: Canada remains a French colony in the Treaty of Paris (1763); UK annexes Guadeloupe instead

At the time there was a substantial debate during the peace negotiations whether it would be more valuable to control Canada or Guadeloupe. At the negotiations France decided that Canada was untenable given the much larger British presence on the Continent and the expense of garrisoning a such a large area that Canada (famously characterized by Voltaire at the time as "a few acres of snow") was less valuable to than the commercially lucrative (based on sugar production) and much more defensible Guadeloupe and the other French sugar islands in the Caribbean. In the UK, it was decided, although they were victorious over France and Spain, that much of their conquests would be returned in order to prevent provoking a future war with France (we all know how well that strategy worked out :rolleyes:) and it was debated whether it would be Canada or Guadeloupe that would be returned to France. Although from a modern perspective it seems an absurd debate to have, at the time there was actually some very good reasons for potentially choosing to keep Guadeloupe rather than Canada: In addition to being much easier to defend, Guadeloupe was much more economically productive than Canada exporting £6 million (and more sugar than all the British West Indies combined) to Canada's mere £14 thousand. Ultimately the British decided to keep Canada for strategic reasons, wanting to get end large scale French presence of the North American mainland.

However, what would have happened if the choice had been different? What if France had decided to try and keep Canada even at the cost of Guadeloupe at the negotiation table, and/or what if the commercial lure of Guadeloupe and all its sugar overrode British strategic concerns on the Continent, resulting in a situation where Guadeloupe is ceded to Great Britain, but France keeps Canada? How would this have changed the development of North America, including the upcoming American Revolution; would a large French territory to their north and west straighten the revolutionaries' position, or would it make the American populace more fearful of revolting against Britain with another recently hostile European power on its borders? Would this have any major effects on European history? How do you think the land that we now know as Canada and the US would be like today?
 
So none of the territory on the mainland claimed by France is ceded, and in return, Britain gets another sugar island?
 
So none of the territory on the mainland claimed by France is ceded, and in return, Britain gets another sugar island?
It sounds ridiculous from a modern perspective but that was a real debate at the time; Guadeloupe was much easier to protect than Canada and produced a much greater profit (which at the time was the real goal in European empire building) . Canada was really seen as a largely barren wasteland at the time and Guadeloupe alone produced more sugar than all Britain's Caribbean islands combined.

From what I have read it was a pretty close run decision, at least on the UK's part.
 
It sounds ridiculous from a modern perspective but that was a real debate at the time; Guadeloupe was much easier to protect than Canada and produced a much greater profit (which at the time was the real goal in European empire building) . Canada was really seen as a largely barren wasteland at the time and Guadeloupe alone produced more sugar than all Britain's Caribbean islands combined.

From what I have read it was a pretty close run decision, at least on the UK's part.
So the lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi would have stayed French too?
 
So none of the territory on the mainland claimed by France is ceded, and in return, Britain gets another sugar island?
I dont know if the OP meant this- but you could have France cede everything south of the Great Lakes and east of the Mississippi. Leaving only what we consider Canada to the French. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, all British. Maybe give French Newfoundland as well? And sugar isnt just a commodity, its something worth a lot more than even the tobacco of Virginia. And Guadeloupe is much more imoirtant than anything the British had- "Another sugar island" is like telling the US in 1848 that California is just "another gold strike".
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
So the lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi would have stayed French too?

I would assume that the disputed territory in the Ohio River Valley would be ceded to Britain, but that territory which had been acknowledged by the British to be French before the war would remain French.
 
I dont know if the OP meant this- but you could have France cede everything south of the Great Lakes and east of the Mississippi. Leaving only what we consider Canada to the French. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, all British. Maybe give French Newfoundland as well? And sugar isnt just a commodity, its something worth a lot more than even the tobacco of Virginia. And Guadeloupe is much more imoirtant than anything the British had- "Another sugar island" is like telling the US in 1848 that California is just "another gold strike".
I get that sugar islands were valuable, but they're also limited, and if nothing on the mainland is gained, there may be discontent settlers who feel that they fought for naught.
I would assume that the disputed territory in the Ohio River Valley would be ceded to Britain, but that territory which had been acknowledged by the British to be French before the war would remain French.
That's a big difference though. The Ohio Country, the Floridas, and everything in between, plus Guadeloupe, and the French retain what would become Quebec and Ontario is substantially different from everything the French claim in return for Guadeloupe.
 
So the lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi would have stayed French too?
I would assume that the disputed territory in the Ohio River Valley would be ceded to Britain, but that territory which had been acknowledged by the British to be French before the war would remain French.
That would be my guess as well; from what I read, Canada was more of a catch all term in France for the whole region, whereas what we see as Canada is more properly defined as "New France". Since this was essentially the British choosing which possession to give back, I assume they would have returned "Canada" based on what they defined the boundaries to be (ie. keeping the regions they had a claim on but returning those that they acknowledged as French prior to the war). This probably mean all of what we see as modern day eastern Canada along with a big swath of central and mid-western USA would have indeed be returned to France akin to what @Anaxagoras said. This still leaves a lot of French territory in the way of any westward expansion.

Florida and Louisiana were ceded in different provisions in the treaty, so they still would have been ceded.
 
Biggest and most immediate results to history- no reason for the British to put in the Proclamation Line, because Colonists in that land will be useful to keep French and Spanish intrigue out, the Natives couldnt be trusted not to play the French card and switch sides whenever they wish. Americans need British protection and therefore see less reason to join New Englander whining about fees and shipping restrictions. Though there is a possibility that with greater westward movement decades ahead of OTL causes the Eastern Seaboard to industrialize sooner and send good west as it would be impractical and expensive to continue to bring in only British, and impossible for the British to stop American craftsmen. American Revolution delayed, but American economic and population growth increases faster than OTL and probably any New England rabble rousing is put down with the reinstatement of the Dominion of New England, though probably not including NY this time.
 
That would be my guess as well; from what I read, Canada was more of a catch all term in France for the whole region, whereas what we see as Canada is more properly defined as "New France". Since this was essentially the British choosing which possession to give back, I assume they would have returned "Canada" based on what they defined the boundaries to be (ie. keeping the regions they had a claim on but returning those that they acknowledged as French prior to the war). This probably mean all of what we see as modern day eastern Canada along with a big swath of central and mid-western USA would have indeed be returned to France akin to what @Anaxagoras said. This still leaves a lot of French territory in the way of any westward expansion.

Florida and Louisiana were ceded in different provisions in the treaty, so they still would have been ceded.
I believe you have it backwards on Canada and New France. And second- Britain doesnt have to give back all-or-none. They can easily say- between the Great Lakes and Mississippi we will keep, you keep the rest.
 
I believe you have it backwards on Canada and New France. And second- Britain doesnt have to give back all-or-none. They can easily say- between the Great Lakes and Mississippi we will keep, you keep the rest.
This is more believable than just Guadeloupe, even if the latter is profitable and easily defended.
 
I believe you have it backwards on Canada and New France. And second- Britain doesnt have to give back all-or-none. They can easily say- between the Great Lakes and Mississippi we will keep, you keep the rest.
You could be right on the terminology; I know one was for the northern region (what we today see as Quebec Ontario and chunks of the northern US states) whereas the other term referred to the whole massive (and sparely populated) French claim.

I do know for sure that Florida and Louisiana at least were to be ceded under a different provision in the treaty, so those areas are already going to the UK.

Remember, the whole strategy here for the UK is to try and give enough back to France that it will mollify them and prevent them from seeking another war in the future in an attempt to reclaim their lost land.

I know colonial borders at the time were pretty loosely demarcated (just look how complete the maps were) so I am not even sure if France and the UK were entirely sure of the area they were negotiating for at the time, but I will try to dig up a bit more info about what the UK actually viewed as "Canada" when they were debating whether or not to keep it vs Guadalupe.
 
You could be right on the terminology; I know one was for the northern region (what we today see as Quebec Ontario and chunks of the northern US states) whereas the other term referred to the whole massive (and sparely populated) French claim.

I do know for sure that Florida and Louisiana at least were to be ceded under a different provision in the treaty, so those areas are already going to the UK.

Remember, the whole strategy here for the UK is to try and give enough back to France that it will mollify them and prevent them from seeking another war in the future in an attempt to reclaim their lost land.
Louisiana is going to Spain, not the UK.
 
Louisiana is going to Spain, not the UK.
Ya, sorry my bad about that, French Louisiana was given to Spain by France and the UK got Florida from Spain.

Interestingly in 1800 Spain actually secretly returned Louisiana (which was a massive swath of territory stretching from the Canadian prairies to the Gulf of Mexico) in the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso. This territory would then be purchased from France by the US in 1803.
 
Last edited:
The British originally offered France the right to keep the territory West of the Mississippi, territory North of the Ohio River with a line running up the Great Lakes. More or less leaving France with present-day Canada, without the Maritimes. The one exception was the rights to fisheries in Newfoundland along with Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. French negotiators were adamant in retaining these fishing rights, and seemed little interested in Canada, other than as a bargaining chip.

The French would have been left with present-day Southern Quebec, Ontario, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and everything to the West.

The French would be forfeiting their claims to present-day New Brunswick, Maine, most of Pennsylvania, Upstate New York, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama.

The French West Indies were a source of illicit trade with British North America as sugar was cheaper there than in the British West Indies. In 1768 some 7 million livres of goods were exported to British North America, an amount of nearly £295,000. This was a huge benefit for French merchants, and one of the reasons for the Sugar Act of 1764.

By 1789, the French West Indies exported 217.5 million livres (£9 million) worth of goods. The prosperity of Nantes and Bordeaux depended on not only trade with the islands, but also on revenues from the slave trade. One third of France's maritime exports went to the French West Indies, and 152 million livres of sugar was reexported from the colonies through France. The re-exports of sugar accounted for one-third of France's export trade. Additionally, the French West Indies imported 78 million livres worth of French goods, making them a major market for French goods (wines, textiles, manufactured goods, etc).

By contrast, New France cost the French government 20 million livres per year. The most valuable trade in New France was the cod trade, worth some 3.5 million livres per year. The balance of exports was worth perhaps another 3 million livres, with this being grains, salted meats, and furs and hides.
 
The British are certainly going to want to keep most of the Ohio Valley (although not necessarily all of it), if only to keep the colonists happy and prevent them from starting up another war in the near future with another Fort Necessity-type incident.

The biggest opposition to keeping Guadeloupe is going to come from the existing British sugar planters, who are not going to be happy about taking another major source of sugar into the Empire.

While the transfer of Louisiana was negotiated separately, if the French see keeping their North American possessions as likely, they are much less likely to be interested in transferring them to Spain (which was mostly seen as a way to protect them from being annexed by the British), so you might see the French keep Louisiana as well in these circumstances. Florida is still a lost cause, though.
 
I don't think the loss of Guadeloupean sugar would hurt the french economy that bad. They still had Haiti and other antillean islands, after all.
But i'm not sure why France would want Canada, after all. Expanding west to find riches would be costly, not mentioning the indians as an obstacle. The profits the french got from their north american colonies did not compensate the costs. I believe that, if French Canada is to survive, it should take back at least part of Acadia or gain the Hudson Bay coast.
 
Guadeloupe was a prosperous plantation economy.

I do not believe that Louisiana is likely to be ceded to Spain if Canada remains French. If New France is still around, why would it?
 
The important question relates to the fate of surviving New France: What will France try to do with it? Will it try to double down, to try to find some way of turning a profit from this territory? Or will it languish as a French periphery?

One likely consequence: Very few, if any, Acadians will remain in the Maritimes. I would expect they would be resettled in the French domains, perhaps Canada because it is closer, perhaps Louisiana because it needs the settlers.
 
I don't think the loss of Guadeloupean sugar would hurt the french economy that bad. They still had Haiti and other antillean islands, after all.
But i'm not sure why France would want Canada, after all. Expanding west to find riches would be costly, not mentioning the indians as an obstacle. The profits the french got from their north american colonies did not compensate the costs. I believe that, if French Canada is to survive, it should take back at least part of Acadia or gain the Hudson Bay coast.

Indeed. The most important french sugar island was Haïti. By far.

Other point is that if the french choose to retain Canada instead of Guadeloupe, I can't see any reason why they would also cede the Ohio valley, the great lakes and the territories between them since the french fortification line of the Ohio valley OTL had successfully resisted to the british attacks.

One hardly realizes how the british were very lucky to defeat the french in Canada (Montcalm's raw mistake of not just waiting). Canada was very easy to defend and very hard to conquer.

And It is obvious that when one holds Canada and Low Louisiana, one needs the territories between the great lakes and the Ohio river (which the french named high Louisiana) in order to link them together.
 
Top