Wi: France Is More Open To Colonial Settlement?

[unprincipled peter]

Is there anything that could be farmed(even if it requires some possible technology/discovery POD) in the North American region that would be in line with free or semi-free French migration?

There's plenty of arable land in New France, which encompassed all of Canada and arguably everything west of the Appalachian mountains (definitely OTL Indiana/Illinois/Michigan and the entire Louisiana Purchase. France claimed Ohio, Kentucky,West Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, top half of Maine, West half of Pennsylvania and New York. Britain also claimed much of those regions). Logistics of getting to most of it and getting it from the natives is another matter, as is France's attitude toward settling it. But there's plenty of fairly easily accessible land for farming.

 

[Lusitania]

The numbers do not lie but you clearly don’t understand what they mean. Anyway, whatever seems to be your point, it does not make too much practical sense because in both cases majority of the people emigrated voluntarily and not because the government ordered them to do so.

This conversation all stemmed from a comment made earlier in this thread about Britain sending or providing most number of settlers. Since I had read in several historical books about Portugal who had a much smaller population being able to provide a much larger number of settlers than Britain I simply corrected the statement.

settlement takes many forms and reasons to emigrate are varied. I wonder what would of happen to new Spain if California gold or New Mexico silver had been discovered say between 1750-1800. How that would of changed New Spain and if tens of thousands of Spanish would of filled those areas. How that would of changed the demographics of those territories and it’s implications for American expansion generations later.

anyway purpose of this thread was more about New France rather Brazil or 13 colonies.

the comments I said and others have echoed about continued migration of even 1,000 people a year. As some have pointed out many would not of had the skills to be farmers but that was not how majority of the migrants worked. They came and went to work for existing land owners and gained knowledge and experience and then moved out on their own.

this would of expanded both Acadian and New France settlement way past iotl locations and made both colonies economic important to France and much harder to conquer.

it might if even offered refugee to nobles and even royals fleeing revolutionary France.

 

[formion]

The merchants would be attracted with what exactly?

Cod.
I recommend Kurlanski's "Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World".

Cod was abundant and its value in the 18th century far outweighted the fur trade in North America. Codfish, being high in protein and with very little fat is excellent for long preservasion and prime source of protein (salted and dried cod is 80% protein). Of course Frenchmen fished the Great Banks and returned to Europe to sell their catch, without the need to settle America. But Europe was only one of the two great cod markets.

How did New Englanders accumulated their capital? They sold low quality saltfish to the sugar islands' plantations. The slaves needed protein rich food to work the sugarcane fields. The cheapest nutritious foodsource was cod, cheaper than salted pork or beef. The European market for high quality cod was serviced by English and French fishermen mostly (although New Engladers took a small share of the market). But New England had cornered the Caribbean market. With the profits from cod, they established distilleries and imported molasses to turn it to rum. Then, they exported rum to Europe and Africa.

This is basically how the american capitalist class was kickstarted. Cod was essential for Yankee commerce in the 18th century.

One of the things some people are not aware is that New England and New France has the best survival rates for colonists due to colder weather which lessened or eliminated many of the tropical diseases that afflicted the colonists in warmer climates.

The settler population was doubling every ~20 years or so, right?


I wonder if catholic Irishmen could have been another source of settlers. There were about 5 irish regiments in Louis XIV's army. Perhaps after serving a few years, they would be entitled to land in New France. After Louis XIV, there was some effort to attract catholic Germans from Alsace. I wonder if it would have been possible in the 1680s. After all, thinning the german population of newly conquered Alsace could have been considered beneficial.

 

[funnyhat]

The settler population was doubling every ~20 years or so, right?


I wonder if catholic Irishmen could have been another source of settlers. There were about 5 irish regiments in Louis XIV's army. Perhaps after serving a few years, they would be entitled to land in New France. After Louis XIV, there was some effort to attract catholic Germans from Alsace. I wonder if it would have been possible in the 1680s. After all, thinning the german population of newly conquered Alsace could have been considered beneficial.

The 1666 census found that the population of New France was 3215. A century later the population of Canada was 60 -70 000. This happened even though the total number of French settlers who came there and stayed permanently was only about 5000. In fact French-Canadians are considered a prime example of a founder population and are popular for genetic research.

Given that rapid growth rate, you do not need a huge amount of additional settlers, just a modest increase to get the total a lot higher. But you would probably need to change colonial policy, such as the interdiction of settlement west of Montréal.