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.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.
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.
True. It will be interesting seeing Charlotina and Transylvania colonies actually being developed.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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).
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.
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.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.