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

why not take both :)
Because while the UK had made substantial conquests during the war they didn't want to impose a treaty that would leave France particularly resentful towards the UK. If they were too harsh in the peace terms, the UK worried that France would launch another war in a few years in order to reclaim their lost territory.

This plan obviously failed, but that is why the peace terms were so comparatively generous.
 
A couple clarifications:

Because while the UK had made substantial conquests during the war they didn't want to impose a treaty that would leave France particularly resentful towards the UK. If they were too harsh in the peace terms, the UK worried that France would launch another war in a few years in order to reclaim their lost territory.

This plan obviously failed, but that is why the peace terms were so comparatively generous.

Actually the reason was that Britain wanted to get back Minorca, which had been conquered by France. It had to give up one of its conquests in return.

Florida and Louisiana were ceded in different provisions in the treaty, so they still would have been ceded.

Louisiana was not ceded in the Treaty of Paris at all. In fact, it states that the Mississippi would be the dividing line between the British and French possessions. But France had in fact secretly ceded it to Spain the previous autumn. (The transfer of power happened a couple of years later.)
 
Last edited:
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.

I actually think under these circumstances there would be little "whining" in New England. The New Englanders were accustomed to simply illegally defying British regulations--in other words, smuggling. And up until 1763, the British authorities were in the habit of simply looking the other way.

The Colonials were important in providing auxiliary forces for British expeditions against New France. Since New France still exists, the mutual interest between Colonials wanting imperial defense against the French and their Native allies, and the imperials in getting help in such actions, continues to hold.

Probably status quo is as it was before the war in the Colonies, which means little or no talk of secession. I believe it was ending the French threat that changed the terms and exposed a long-developing rift between Colonial and British society. Now that rift will continue to evolve and it is conceivable that conflicts would come to a head despite the French threat. Also, Britain might seek to tighten control despite the French presence--conceivably, it might be precisely with the next conflict with France in mind that Parliament might seek reforms that alienate colonials.

However, with the threat of New France so nearby, I suspect colonials will tend to mute complaints about even rather strongly felt grievances; either they will roll with bothersome British policies and adapt to them, or quietly defy them as they were long accustomed to doing. That would put the ball of provoking conflict over noncompliance into Parliament's court, and it would be there that friends of Colonial interests would point out the impoliticness of alienating the colonials when French forces lie so near. Probably tacit settlements would be reached whereby the most influential and loyal colonials have understandings of their basic interests respected in Parliament, and in turn they help the British authorities suppress and prosecute more wildcat violations.

I think sooner or later the British are going to take New France and not give it back, in part because the colonials will question why they keep conquering the place only to return it yet again. Once that happens, the Pandora's Box of American revolution is probably opened, depending on just how delayed the conquest is. But until that happens, and possibly after that, there will be no American Revolution in the British colonies.

If France keeps New France forever, then I suppose BNA stays British forever.
 
I have long been thinking so.

And however I now think that the point is that time is not necessarily going to play in favor of the british and their settlers. I even think it will play in favor of the french.

If France keeps new France, then it is going to settle it. And when the french population has grown enough in North America, they will have become virtually impregnable. All the wars in North America in the 18th and early 19th century demonstrated that it was extremely difficult to conquer and quite easy to defend, even with a gigantic demographic disadvantage, because of the distances, the climate, the poor supply line.
 
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.
True. It will be interesting seeing Charlotina and Transylvania colonies actually being developed.
 
I'm probably one of the few who think there was no French threat to British North America. The threat is the other way around, well into the foreseeable future (1763 and beyond). New England was NOT quaking in it's boots fearing an onslaught of French Hordes. They're pissed at Gol Durn Mother England who keeps giving back the French territories taken in every war. If England doesn't expand to the Mississippi, the middle/southern colonies are going to join in that sentiment. Plus, England is still going to have the war debt, and still going to try to squeeze it out of the colonies. the revolution goes on as scheduled. It may even get moved up. Major change, though is that Burgoyne doesn't travel from Canada, thereby butterflying Saratoga. Will the Patriots be so trusting of French soldiers on US soil when Canada is still French and might decide to regain some of the French claimed territories lost? Will the French be so willing to join the war, knowing they could lose more territory. the whole idea, OTL, was to snag British holdings elsewhere around the globe while Britain was tied down in America. with a French Canada, more emphasis is going to be put there from the start.

What happens to the Hudson Bay Co?

If the French Revolution still happens, what happens to Canada? It's been posited here before that with a Canada still available as a place to send malcontents, some of the pressure would be relieved, so maybe the FR doesn't go off as OTL. the flip side is that the FR was supported, at first, by pretty much all classes. That's going to take some major movement to relieve enough pressure, and I don't think that's realistic.
 
I'm probably one of the few who think there was no French threat to British North America. The threat is the other way around, well into the foreseeable future (1763 and beyond). New England was NOT quaking in it's boots fearing an onslaught of French Hordes. They're pissed at Gol Durn Mother England who keeps giving back the French territories taken in every war. If England doesn't expand to the Mississippi, the middle/southern colonies are going to join in that sentiment. Plus, England is still going to have the war debt, and still going to try to squeeze it out of the colonies. the revolution goes on as scheduled. It may even get moved up. Major change, though is that Burgoyne doesn't travel from Canada, thereby butterflying Saratoga. Will the Patriots be so trusting of French soldiers on US soil when Canada is still French and might decide to regain some of the French claimed territories lost? Will the French be so willing to join the war, knowing they could lose more territory. the whole idea, OTL, was to snag British holdings elsewhere around the globe while Britain was tied down in America. with a French Canada, more emphasis is going to be put there from the start.

What happens to the Hudson Bay Co?

If the French Revolution still happens, what happens to Canada? It's been posited here before that with a Canada still available as a place to send malcontents, some of the pressure would be relieved, so maybe the FR doesn't go off as OTL. the flip side is that the FR was supported, at first, by pretty much all classes. That's going to take some major movement to relieve enough pressure, and I don't think that's realistic.
Look up events like the Schenectady Massacre and also how close French and British forts are to each other such as Fort William Henry and Fort Ticonderoga. Albany was the 10th largest city in BNA at the time and if that city is in constant threat of French-led raids then so will the city of NY and the region of New England. And look up the history of French and Native raids in New England. France not a threat? Yes they were.
 
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.
The French will cede the Ohio valley, Great Lakes, etc. because the British won't allow them to keep them. That was one of the causes of the war, after all, the dispute over those territories. Remember that the French are not in a strong bargaining position here; most of their overseas holdings have been occupied, their Spanish allies have also had quite a few of their valuable territories overrun, and the European theater has run into serious problems as well. At this point, they need to make peace, and can't dictate terms.

The British want peace, but not at the price of giving up the Ohio Valley (the initial flashpoint, and almost certain to cause future wars if it is still in French hands). Unlike with Canada, the British claimed the Ohio Valley as already having belonged to them, so giving it up would be a cessation of territory from their perspective; not something they would contemplate after as decisive a victory as the Seven Years War. The border may not end up being the Mississippi as OTL (although it likely will be; unlike lines of longitude, rivers are easy to identify on the ground, reducing the likelihood of future disputes).
 
NapRules,
Those raids are hardly a reason to stick with a mother country who is seen as holding you back. OTL, the colonies wanted to take the lead in taking Canada in the 7 yrs war, but were laughed at by Britain. the Patriots defeated Burgoyne's army. they can handle raids, and French Canada is no invasion threat other than border skirmishes. FC is NO threat to the existence of the USA, or even the northern states.
 
NapRules,
Those raids are hardly a reason to stick with a mother country who is seen as holding you back. OTL, the colonies wanted to take the lead in taking Canada in the 7 yrs war, but were laughed at by Britain. the Patriots defeated Burgoyne's army. they can handle raids, and French Canada is no invasion threat other than border skirmishes. FC is NO threat to the existence of the USA, or even the northern states.
You are looking at history from this viewpoint of today. I assure you that at that point in time NY and New Englanders felt France was a threat to their daily lives.
 
The French will cede the Ohio valley, Great Lakes, etc. because the British won't allow them to keep them. That was one of the causes of the war, after all, the dispute over those territories. Remember that the French are not in a strong bargaining position here; most of their overseas holdings have been occupied, their Spanish allies have also had quite a few of their valuable territories overrun, and the European theater has run into serious problems as well. At this point, they need to make peace, and can't dictate terms.

The British want peace, but not at the price of giving up the Ohio Valley (the initial flashpoint, and almost certain to cause future wars if it is still in French hands). Unlike with Canada, the British claimed the Ohio Valley as already having belonged to them, so giving it up would be a cessation of territory from their perspective; not something they would contemplate after as decisive a victory as the Seven Years War. The border may not end up being the Mississippi as OTL (although it likely will be; unlike lines of longitude, rivers are easy to identify on the ground, reducing the likelihood of future disputes).

And how will Britain get what It does not hold ?

That the british colonies wanted the Ohio valley is one thing. Britain itself was not as much interested in it.

But OTL the british army and settler militias were unable to take control of the Ohio valley during the FYW.

And claims are worthless. Everyone can forge a claim. The popes even forged the so-called Constantine's donation.

So if the french don't give in, the y can retain all the territories they held even if It was a very loose hold.
 
Matteo,
Britain was interested enough in the Ohio Valley to start a war over it. Either that or they wanted to use it as an excuse to knock France down. They had plenty of chances to compromise on the valley and avoid the war

what's the FYW? I'm assuming we're still talking 7 yr war, alias french and indian war? if so, there was nothing to take control of, as there was no settlement. didn't Britain take the forts in western NY/PA by the end of the war? France was completely whipped in North America, and weren't stopping a troop of boyscouts from going anywhere the scouts wanted (only a very slight bit of hyperbole).

As others have said, France had virtually no say in the peace terms. They only made out as well as they did because Britain treated them better than they treated their own ally, Prussia.
 
Matteo,
Britain was interested enough in the Ohio Valley to start a war over it. Either that or they wanted to use it as an excuse to knock France down. They had plenty of chances to compromise on the valley and avoid the war

what's the FYW? I'm assuming we're still talking 7 yr war, alias french and indian war? if so, there was nothing to take control of, as there was no settlement. didn't Britain take the forts in western NY/PA by the end of the war? France was completely whipped in North America, and weren't stopping a troop of boyscouts from going anywhere the scouts wanted (only a very slight bit of hyperbole).

As others have said, France had virtually no say in the peace terms. They only made out as well as they did because Britain treated them better than they treated their own ally, Prussia.

It should have been FIW for french and indian war.

It was Quebec that was taken, I mean french Canada. The british attempts on the Ohio valley had failed.

Britain had good reasons for making such offers.

It thought that sugar islands were more profitable.
It needed peace almost as badly as the other belligerents since It was hugely indebted because of the war unprecedented costs.
And It needed especially to find an agreement with Spain which, having entered the war but in 1762, was still fresh and prepared to fight on.
 
It should have been FIW for french and indian war.

It was Quebec that was taken, I mean french Canada. The british attempts on the Ohio valley had failed.

Britain had good reasons for making such offers.

It thought that sugar islands were more profitable.
It needed peace almost as badly as the other belligerents since It was hugely indebted because of the war unprecedented costs.
And It needed especially to find an agreement with Spain which, having entered the war but in 1762, was still fresh and prepared to fight on.
The Ohio Valley was, from the French perspective useless without Quebec and Montreal. That is why OTL the British got it in the peace treaty. If they wished to have it in the treaty but give back north of the Great Lakes and St Lawrence then that would be fine by the French, much better than reversing what is kept and given. You dont have to occupy every inch to receive title in a treaty. Look at WWI and the multiple treaties before and after the Treaty of Versaille, boundaries were moved and lines redrawn. Europe is like that.
 
from Wiki: "The Forbes Expedition was a British campaign in September–October 1758, with 6,000 troops led by General John Forbes to drive the French out of the contested Ohio Country. After a British advance party on Fort Duquesne was repulsed on September 14, the French withdrew from Fort Duquesne, leaving the British in control of the Ohio River Valley"
 
Yes, the French had lost most of their holdings in Canada and the Ohio Valley. The valley wasn't well fortified; it was the construction of the first few forts that triggered the war in the first place, and the important forts had mostly been taken. If the British say "withdraw from the Ohio Valley or we don't give you back Canada," (which is essentially what a peace treaty is), then the French will...withdraw from the Ohio Valley if they want to keep Canada. The French have no bargaining power here, and the colonies have enough influence to ensure that much, even if the British are willing to return Canada proper.

Remember that control over the Ohio Valley is mostly in the hands of the various native nations anyway (look at where Pontiac's Rebellion was mostly fought). That could get messy (and the French might slip some arms to the natives under the table), but the French will stay out of it.
 
Top