AFAIK, majority of the population in 13 colonies had not been indentured servants. This would not go well as a substitute for the free farmers.
Wi: France Is More Open To Colonial Settlement?
- Thread starter AltoRegnant
- Start date
unprincipled peter
Donor
birth rate and survival rate were pretty high in the top half of New France. Rule of thumb says a doubling of population every 20 years.
OTL, NF went from 700ish in 1650 to 50-60 thousand in 1750 with minimal immigration. adding a few hundred a year, especially from the days of Champlain puts that 600 thousand mark easily in reach. What is being proposed is not some herculean effort, but simply a slow and steady policy of building the colony. There's no arguing that there's a lot of reasons why France didn't adopt that policy. But if you simply accept that the policy is adopted (the What If), it is a very attainable goal.
Lack of immigration efforts and administration of the colony are the root causes of the issue. France treated NF as a fur trade post, and restricted other activities (making your own cloth was illegal, for example), while making little effort to foster immigration. It took a long time for the colony to gain speed, but it finally did, and was starting to take off when Britain seized it. capture of it had more to do with British control of the seas, and global military strategy than population disparity. If NF had more population to contribute to defense of the home land and if France recognizes the need for a Navy (which it might if it has a more prosperous colony), Britain is not as successful.
OTL, NF went from 700ish in 1650 to 50-60 thousand in 1750 with minimal immigration. adding a few hundred a year, especially from the days of Champlain puts that 600 thousand mark easily in reach. What is being proposed is not some herculean effort, but simply a slow and steady policy of building the colony. There's no arguing that there's a lot of reasons why France didn't adopt that policy. But if you simply accept that the policy is adopted (the What If), it is a very attainable goal.
Lack of immigration efforts and administration of the colony are the root causes of the issue. France treated NF as a fur trade post, and restricted other activities (making your own cloth was illegal, for example), while making little effort to foster immigration. It took a long time for the colony to gain speed, but it finally did, and was starting to take off when Britain seized it. capture of it had more to do with British control of the seas, and global military strategy than population disparity. If NF had more population to contribute to defense of the home land and if France recognizes the need for a Navy (which it might if it has a more prosperous colony), Britain is not as successful.
unprincipled peter
Donor
From Wiki:
Indentured servitude in British America - Wikipedia
"Between the 1630s and the American Revolution, one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies arrived under indentures.[5] "
"Between one-half and two-thirds of European immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies between the 1630s and the American Revolution came under indentures.[5] The practice was sufficiently common that the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, in part, prevented imprisonments overseas; it also made provisions for those with existing transportation contracts and those "praying to be transported" in lieu of remaining in prison upon conviction.[12] In any case, while half the European immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had been indentured servants at some time, actively indentured servants were outnumbered by non-indentured workers, or by those whose indenture had expired. Thus free wage labour was more common for Europeans in the colonies.[13] Indentured persons were numerically important mostly in the region from Virginia north to New Jersey. Other colonies saw far fewer of them. The total number of European immigrants to all 13 colonies before 1775 was 500,000–550,000; of these, 55,000 were involuntary prisoners. Of the 450,000 or so European arrivals who came voluntarily, Tomlins estimates that 48% were indentured.[14] About 75% were under the age of 25. The age of legal adulthood for men was 24 years; those over 24 generally came on contracts lasting about 3 years.[1] Regarding the children who came, Gary Nash reports that, "many of the servants were actually nephews, nieces, cousins and children of friends of emigrating Englishmen, who paid their passage in return for their labour once in America."[15] "
I don't think the majority of the population were indentured, but a very significant percentage of the immigrants came over that way.
Very interesting and to a certain degree makes sense because people had to get enough money to pay for the passage and then to buy everything necessary for the independent farming. But 480K came voluntarily and it does not look like in France of that period there was similar interest in traveling to the colonies. An idea that the French government could force emigration of few hundreds thousands (even over a considerable period of time) does not look realistic.From Wiki:
Indentured servitude in British America - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Between the 1630s and the American Revolution, one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies arrived under indentures.[5] "
"Between one-half and two-thirds of European immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies between the 1630s and the American Revolution came under indentures.[5] The practice was sufficiently common that the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, in part, prevented imprisonments overseas; it also made provisions for those with existing transportation contracts and those "praying to be transported" in lieu of remaining in prison upon conviction.[12] In any case, while half the European immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies had been indentured servants at some time, actively indentured servants were outnumbered by non-indentured workers, or by those whose indenture had expired. Thus free wage labour was more common for Europeans in the colonies.[13] Indentured persons were numerically important mostly in the region from Virginia north to New Jersey. Other colonies saw far fewer of them. The total number of European immigrants to all 13 colonies before 1775 was 500,000–550,000; of these, 55,000 were involuntary prisoners. Of the 450,000 or so European arrivals who came voluntarily, Tomlins estimates that 48% were indentured.[14] About 75% were under the age of 25. The age of legal adulthood for men was 24 years; those over 24 generally came on contracts lasting about 3 years.[1] Regarding the children who came, Gary Nash reports that, "many of the servants were actually nephews, nieces, cousins and children of friends of emigrating Englishmen, who paid their passage in return for their labour once in America."[15] "
I don't think the majority of the population were indentured, but a very significant percentage of the immigrants came over that way.
Lusitania
Donor
As stated the total emigration to 13 colonies was between 500,000-550,000 in the emigration to Brazil it lists Portuguese emigration at 600,000.
Immigration to Brazil - Wikipedia
Therefore a country of less than 50% the size of England size had greater migration.
Lusitania
Donor
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.
Thus populations were able to multiply at a much greater rate than in southern colonies. In many of the southern colonies the population growth was only due to continued emigration. While northern british colonies and New France (If it had followed same emigration pattern) would of been growing from both natural and emigration.
Thus populations were able to multiply at a much greater rate than in southern colonies. In many of the southern colonies the population growth was only due to continued emigration. While northern british colonies and New France (If it had followed same emigration pattern) would of been growing from both natural and emigration.
Last edited:
As stated the total emigration to 13 colonies was between 500,000-550,000 in the emigration to Brazil it lists Portuguese emigration at 600,000.
Immigration to Brazil - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Therefore a country of less than 50% the size of England size had greater migration.
England had India to populate as well as a few other places around the world. Portugal had really just Brazil in terms of size.
Well, there were reasons for this phenomena. Actually, the article says that out of approximately 700k immigrants who came before Brazil became independent approximately 600k you mentioned came in the XVIII century. This should not be such a big surprise because that century was marked by the peak of the Brazilian gold (and diamond) rush in which more than 400k Portuguese and more than half a million African slaves participated directly between the end of the XVII and the early XX century. During the XVIII century more than 1,000,000 tons of gold and 3,000,000 carats of diamonds had been extracted. Of course, the byproduct was an active development of the food production (including massive cattle breeding), migrations from the cane sugar producing areas to those closer to the mining and resulting move of the capital to Rio de Janeiro and on the top of it in the XVIII Brazil started mass production of the coffee beans.As stated the total emigration to 13 colonies was between 500,000-550,000 in the emigration to Brazil it lists Portuguese emigration at 600,000.
Immigration to Brazil - Wikipedia
Therefore a country of less than 50% the size of England size had greater migration.
Small wonder that combination of all these factors resulted in a massive flow of immigrants from Portugal and it is also not a big surprise than when the gold/diamond rush was over, immigration went down.
For comparison, Klondike gold rush which lasted for only 3 years involved 100,000 prospectors and California gold rush that lasted 7 years - 300,000 so a much longer Brazilian one does not look extraordinary in the terms of the labor numbers . Taking into an account that prior to its good & diamond rush Brazil had a tiny population, immigration (and purchase of the slaves) was the only available way to get the needed numbers. Add on the top of it the hands needed for the increased meat production and new coffee plantations and the numbers do not look o high at all.
Now, AFAIK, there was not too much of gold or diamonds in the 13 colonies (even if there is a “Diamond District” in Lynn, MA 🤩) and immigration was shaped by the different factors so the comparison with Brazil hardly makes too much sense.
Last edited:
Lusitania
Donor
Sorry but England was not extensively involved in India till after the ARW.
You are missing the point that a country much smaller in size and population still sent more emmigrants. Portugal also had Africa, was extensively in India, Macau which England was not and Timor.
Lusitania
Donor
Again you trying to state that England with its huge population and size difference was better and that is not true. Also the number of emigrants had nothing to do with Africans which by ARW was about the same in both countries.
Nonsense, starting from the claim that in the XVIII England (actually, Britain) had a “huge population” or was somehow “better” (in which sense?) and all the way to the Africans and ARW, which is absolutely irrelevant to the issue. It seems that you understood nothing out of what I wad talking about and attributing to me something that I never said.
The point, try to pay attention, is that in the XVIII there were the objective reasons for an extraordinary massive immigration from Portugal to Brazil while there was noting extraordinary that would cause similar peak of immigration into the 13 colonies during that period.
Lusitania
Donor
Portuguese population in 1775 was about 3 million while British isles population was close to 10 million.
the point was made that Portuguese emigration to Brazil was higher than British emigration to 13 colonies. The fact was that regardless of the reason for the migration of people a country 1/3 of the population had more migrants than Britain.
When Boswell remarked on the general prettiness of American women, Samuel Johnson (no friend of the colonists) snapped back peevishly "Of course they are beautiful- their mothers were all transported whores".
Because there was a very serious reason (a good chance to get wealthy) for them to cross the Atlantic Ocean and as soon as the reason was gone emigration fell down again (out of 700,000 during the whole colonial period 600,000 went to Brazil in the XVIII century). Is this too difficult to understand?
Lusitania
Donor
Yes they went to Brazil. Yes they emigrated for riches.
regardless a country with 1/3 of population Still sent more colonists to Brazil than Britain sent to the 13 colonies. The numbers don’t lie.
it’s like you arguing that because a large portion went because of discovery of gold It invalidates the number.
just accept the number and get over it.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Let's remain civil. You two are arguing two different things. Lusitania is saying migration occurred, therefore it's possible for France to support a higher level of migration.
axelmilman is arguing about reasons why the contrasting migration patterns occurred. No one is disputing the reasons.
I think both arguments are valid. A higher level of migration from France is easily supportable. However, it is not easy to get the will for migration, and without this will, the migration won't occur. They are two different arguments/considerations/conclusions. Reasons why greater migration didn't occur doesn't mean greater migration is not physically possible. Reasons why greater migration is possible doesn't mean the will to migrate can be created.
If you separate the two arguments, and address them separately, a more meaningful discussion can be had.
axelmilman is arguing about reasons why the contrasting migration patterns occurred. No one is disputing the reasons.
I think both arguments are valid. A higher level of migration from France is easily supportable. However, it is not easy to get the will for migration, and without this will, the migration won't occur. They are two different arguments/considerations/conclusions. Reasons why greater migration didn't occur doesn't mean greater migration is not physically possible. Reasons why greater migration is possible doesn't mean the will to migrate can be created.
If you separate the two arguments, and address them separately, a more meaningful discussion can be had.
Why did this attitude arise?
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?
How did this system arise? Was it organically, from tradition or a conscious decision?
Can't expansion and migration simply happen by virtue of the pull factors of such a big land area open for grabs and a socio-cultural situation that supports and allow such migration? Also isn't it possible for sea travel to be less dangerous, allowing for more people that have less of a reason to go to still decide to do so? Also what about the 17th century famines, wouldn't those push many to search for more land elsewhere?
Ignoring pointless skepticism, what kind of migration figures do you think France could achieve with reasonably favourable conditions? Is there a reason to believe numbers on the hundreds of thousands would be impossible in the 17th or 18th century?[/QUOTE]
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.