WI New France had the same population as the 13 colonies.

Plus, white Europeans weren't used to the tropical heat, and so tended to die off much more quickly than black Africans.
Indeed, indeed. I was being somewhat sarcastic with the slaves part. Considering Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic though, I imagine that Haiti could be used to produce more than just sugar if they tried to settle it. Of course the culture of whoever went there would change due to the climate and I can see them being seen as bumpkins if they go to visit Paris, even if they are a great landowner. Especially if they have tanned skin. Also the issue of what regions settlers come from, as until the French Revolution when people flooded into the army to protect their country/avoid being guillotined for being unpatriotic French, hadn't been too universal for the lower classes. Might well that instead of French being a unifying language in the colonies a form of creole is created.
 
They New Yorkers and New England's certainly showed no interest in invading northwards, which was why the War of 1812 didn't have the major cities of British North America occupied. And the Americans were only really interested in the mouth of the Mississippi since so much of their trade went down the river. The northern half of the Louisianna Purchase (which Napoleon offered, the Americans not having asked about it) was called the Great American Desert. For the longest time it was like Oregon Trail. Get to the other side of the continent as quickly as possible without leaving too many sunbleached skeletons behind.
I'm talking about how Louisiana rapidly got settled after Murica purchased it.

Perhaps Quebec is turned into a large scale penal colony?

If Quebec was still any kind of a threat then the Colonies think twice and probably do not revolt.
This.They should have just rounded up the urban poor and shipped them off to New France.
 
Last edited:
This.They should have just rounded up the urban poor and shipped them off to New France.
Define 'poor'. And this is bsically removing the tax payers, workers, etc of France. Attempting to round up people in cities to send them off to some foreign land which kills loads of those who don't die from malnutrition and disease of cramped, cold ships from month long journeys... Who would even do the rounding up? Who build the ships? And how would you feed urban poor? There were literal hordes of people who went begging in the South of France (I think Savoyards?) who did it not because of a lack of money because of culture or something. Their home area didn't mind since they always paid their taxes on time. Might be the French put up vagrancy laws and grab anyone traveling in large groups without certain permits, since their is a far greater chance they have farming skills that people in urban environments. Yes, the urban poor might have come from the country side, but- Actually, how are they going to pay for these fleets of ships? Sure, you could do it if it was to send Topher somewhere to grow sugar because of the profit, but it doesn't seem profitable if you are simply dumping people in the Americas. The British colonies had people pay to get there themselves.
 
Define 'poor'. And this is bsically removing the tax payers, workers, etc of France. Attempting to round up people in cities to send them off to some foreign land which kills loads of those who don't die from malnutrition and disease of cramped, cold ships from month long journeys... Who would even do the rounding up? Who build the ships? And how would you feed urban poor? There were literal hordes of people who went begging in the South of France (I think Savoyards?) who did it not because of a lack of money because of culture or something. Their home area didn't mind since they always paid their taxes on time. Might be the French put up vagrancy laws and grab anyone traveling in large groups without certain permits, since their is a far greater chance they have farming skills that people in urban environments. Yes, the urban poor might have come from the country side, but- Actually, how are they going to pay for these fleets of ships? Sure, you could do it if it was to send Topher somewhere to grow sugar because of the profit, but it doesn't seem profitable if you are simply dumping people in the Americas. The British colonies had people pay to get there themselves.
The urban poor was always a security threat--as indicated when they stormed the Tuileries during the Fronde.When I'm talking about urban poor,yes I'm talking about vagrants,people who are out of work.

Naturally,some funding would have to be put in place to send these people overseas.

As for your notion of British colonies having people pay to get themselves to their colonies--that didn't happen in the penal colonies.
 
The urban poor was always a security threat--as indicated when they stormed the Tuileries during the Fronde.When I'm talking about urban poor,yes I'm talking about vagrants,people who are out of work.

Naturally,some funding would have to be put in place to send these people overseas.

As for your notion of British colonies having people pay to get themselves to their colonies--that didn't happen in the penal colonies.
I thought it was mostly to Georgia, but looking it up it seems they did also send them to the Chesapeake Bay. The majority did pay their way though, though considering the system of indentured servitude used by some... Actually, perhaps some of the extreme excess of nobles could go over there. Or be pushed. Let them start up their own settlements with themselves as the head honcho. Might be a good place to put the disgraced as well.

Still, limited areas to settle and it would anger locals. Maybe instead of this being just French it comes to include a massive Metis, Native, Creole, and slave population to go with Acadians, Frenchmen, some other groups?
 
What about getting catholic f on the HRE and Italy to move there aswell?
Probably would be problems recruiting, as the Catholic portions of southern Germany were in fractured hands under the overlordship of the Habsburgs, as was portions of northern Italy, and most of the South. It switched a bit between the Austrians and Spanish being in charge of each. For Southern Germany though you would need to cross many borders and then attract people to settle far off, while their minor lords might not want to lose their peasents. The Spanish will also want to keep their Italians out of French hands, even if they did keep the Italians form settling in the Spanish colonies. Then again, the Spaniards tried to keep their own people in cities in the Americas anyways. Think it was something about avoiding more adventurers who might gain a local power base. Been a long time since I read up on that, though.
 
A lot of Frenchmen were already miserable enough and have nothing to lose but their lives.

In regards to safety,the same can be said about the colonies of other countries in the Americans.The 13 colonies and the Portuguese ones weren't safe to begin with either and were fairly miserable when they first started.

As for Louis XIV's move to the Versailles,it was partly due to a fear of the urban poor.During the Fronde,the mob stormed the palace and even entered his room.They only left him alone when they found that he was asleep.Dude was absolutely terrified of the mob and don't want to experience that anymore.

The urban poor was always a security threat--as indicated when they stormed the Tuileries during the Fronde.When I'm talking about urban poor,yes I'm talking about vagrants,people who are out of work.

Naturally,some funding would have to be put in place to send these people overseas.

As for your notion of British colonies having people pay to get themselves to their colonies--that didn't happen in the penal colonies.

What is your source on this ?
I never heard anything like this, so I searched a bit, and the only thing I found is a footnote saying that during a day of January 1651, the mob entered the Royal palace to see the King.
It is not given an importance as big as the one you confer to that event, so I'm having trouble to picture the construction of the greatest and most expensive palace of its time decided on a single minor event.

Back to the OP, we need to determine what part of New France we're talking about, as Québec is very different from Louisiane; as well as when.
OTL there was an attempt of sending more settlers to Louisiane under the Regency (ie. urban poors, prostitutes, the fringe of the society), but it was still on a small scale.
In my opinion, using force was not the most effective way to attract settlers there. [There was an hilarious scene about this in "Let joy reign supreme" of Bertrand Tavernier, where they round up the delinquents, marry them expeditiously before sending them in Louisiane.]

Plus, a big chunk of these people will die during the trip, and the rest within the few first weeks after settling due to various diseases.
To make a real difference in the population, I think the only way is the one went by Viriato on his (great) TL : An earlier settlement of New France.
 
What is your source on this ?
I never heard anything like this, so I searched a bit, and the only thing I found is a footnote saying that during a day of January 1651, the mob entered the Royal palace to see the King.
It is not given an importance as big as the one you confer to that event, so I'm having trouble to picture the construction of the greatest and most expensive palace of its time decided on a single minor event.

Back to the OP, we need to determine what part of New France we're talking about, as Québec is very different from Louisiane; as well as when.
OTL there was an attempt of sending more settlers to Louisiane under the Regency (ie. urban poors, prostitutes, the fringe of the society), but it was still on a small scale.
In my opinion, using force was not the most effective way to attract settlers there. [There was an hilarious scene about this in "Let joy reign supreme" of Bertrand Tavernier, where they round up the delinquents, marry them expeditiously before sending them in Louisiane.]

Plus, a big chunk of these people will die during the trip, and the rest within the few first weeks after settling due to various diseases.
To make a real difference in the population, I think the only way is the one went by Viriato on his (great) TL : An earlier settlement of New France.
A read it a long time ago from elsewhere,but just googling it found me a good number of sources on this.Louis XIV was definitely wary of the Parisian mob and wanted to stay away from them due to bad experience from his childhood.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GisbDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT69&lpg=PT69&dq="louis+xiv"+versailles+parisian+mob+"fronde"&source=bl&ots=RVyCqzn9hO&sig=T9mLj9PmfafwvbFlnCtf05js1H8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpn_T27PHTAhVFpZQKHTT7AUQQ6AEITzAI#v=onepage&q="louis xiv" versailles parisian mob "fronde"&f=false

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/01/11/fronde-1648-1653/

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sERmCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq="louis+xiv"+versailles+parisian+mob+"fronde"&source=bl&ots=p5qkQxy95J&sig=WfhsNWP77FR4ROVCZSdpMeAeaTo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ_6W17fHTAhXElZQKHeZYBa84ChDoAQhDMAc#v=onepage&q="louis xiv" versailles parisian mob "fronde"&f=false

I thought it was mostly to Georgia, but looking it up it seems they did also send them to the Chesapeake Bay. The majority did pay their way though, though considering the system of indentured servitude used by some... Actually, perhaps some of the extreme excess of nobles could go over there. Or be pushed. Let them start up their own settlements with themselves as the head honcho. Might be a good place to put the disgraced as well.

Still, limited areas to settle and it would anger locals. Maybe instead of this being just French it comes to include a massive Metis, Native, Creole, and slave population to go with Acadians, Frenchmen, some other groups?
They did it to Australia as well.Point is that once the place has been settled for a while by the convicts and some basic infrastructures are built by them,it will look neat enough for subsequent settlement by more presentable individuals.

Better anger the locals than lose New France.While the native allies were a great help,they were to my knowledge often unreliable and they often tried to juggle between the French and the British.
 
Last edited:
Might well that instead of French being a unifying language in the colonies a form of creole is created.

Creoles were created among the slave populations of all of France's tropical colonies. The white populations, however, all adopted French even though many probably had ancestors who had not spoken it. They wanted to be considered "respectable" and to speak a slave-derived language would not do. French also was the language of administration. For the same reason, Spain's European settlers adopted Spanish.
 
Creoles were created among the slave populations of all of France's tropical colonies. The white populations, however, all adopted French even though many probably had ancestors who had not spoken it. They wanted to be considered "respectable" and to speak a slave-derived language would not do. French also was the language of administration. For the same reason, Spain's European settlers adopted Spanish.
Please note I was refering to creole with a lowercase c, which is a mixture of languages. Heck, check out the amount of creole languages they have. We aren't talking about individual whites coming over, but about hundreds of thousands. Presumably entire villages would be transplanted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creole_languages
 
Indeed, indeed. I was being somewhat sarcastic with the slaves part. Considering Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic though, I imagine that Haiti could be used to produce more than just sugar if they tried to settle it. Of course the culture of whoever went there would change due to the climate and I can see them being seen as bumpkins if they go to visit Paris, even if they are a great landowner. Especially if they have tanned skin. Also the issue of what regions settlers come from, as until the French Revolution when people flooded into the army to protect their country/avoid being guillotined for being unpatriotic French, hadn't been too universal for the lower classes. Might well that instead of French being a unifying language in the colonies a form of creole is created.

Saint-Domingue was and can be used for coffee production which cannot be grown in Louisiane. Overall, more sugarcane can be produced in Louisiane if effort is given, it just has higher costs considering an even more tropical environment and wet landscape. However it is not insurmountable as people act, the Portuguese colonized Brazil despite its issues.

Regardless, in my opinion, France was simply a poor administrator of its colonial provinces. We see glimpses of this when Spain begins its dominion and how quickly things begin to turn for the better in the colonies and then the rapid growth of the areas sugarcane production, partly encouraged by Spain. Previous to this, tobacco was grown in the north of the state, but overall the production was limited compared to the vast sugarcane production the area would experience after the Spanish period.
 
Last edited:
Saint-Domingue was and can be used for coffee production which cannot be grown in Louisiane. Overall, more sugarcane can be produced in Louisiane if effort is given, it just has higher costs considering an even more tropical environment and wet landscape. However it is not insurmountable as people act, the Portuguese colonized Brazil despite its issues.

Regardless, in my opinion, France was simply a poor administrator of its colonial provinces. We see glimpses of this when Spain begins its dominion and how quickly things begin to turn for the better in the colonies and then the rapid growth of the areas sugarcane production, partly encouraged by Spain. Previous to this, tobacco was grown in the north of the state, but overall the production was limited compared to the vast sugarcane production the area would experience after the Spanish period.

It's funny how the Spanish(IMHO the most incompetent colonial administrators) managed to put Louisiana to good use better than the French. This is a pretty big tangent, but I always found it utterly bizarre how the core of Spanish America was managed versus places like California or Louisiana. Peru and Bolivia were treated as silver mines with the populations there simply the tools needed to keep the money flowing. It didn't really matter if you were white, black or brown, you were either in the mines or working on massive hacienda dedicated to producing luxury goods that resulted in little population growth. The extent to which the Spanish managed to retard the population growth of Peru/Bolivia, let alone other areas such as Mexico is impressive in its incompetence. Was it simply a Bourbon thing that broke the trend with newer colonies? Was the old system simply grandfathered in and not done away with during their reforms? Were the local lords simply too entrenched to be worth the effort? I've always wondered how Colombia managed to attain such a large population when it was under a similar system of rule to Peru or Mexico yet defied their demographic trends.
 
Please note I was refering to creole with a lowercase c, which is a mixture of languages. Heck, check out the amount of creole languages they have. We aren't talking about individual whites coming over, but about hundreds of thousands. Presumably entire villages would be transplanted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creole_languages

A creole language is more than that. It is a language that derives from a pidgin, which emerges when two groups speaking completely unrelated languages must find a rudimentary way to communicate. Most creoles develop in conditions of slavery or some other one-sided relationship in which one group is clearly dominant over the other.

That would not describe the situation in TTL, where the initial settlers would mostly speak Gallo-Romance dialects of some form, then would probably learn some standard French (as it would be used by their colonial administration). In TTL, you might see some regionalisms develop but it's very likely that the vast majority of free settlers would in time become French speakers, just as those in Latin America became Spanish speakers, even though many originally spoke other Iberian languages. The dominant language of a colony tends to be established early on by its ruling class and then later settlers conform to it.
 
Last edited:
It's funny how the Spanish(IMHO the most incompetent colonial administrators) managed to put Louisiana to good use better than the French. This is a pretty big tangent, but I always found it utterly bizarre how the core of Spanish America was managed versus places like California or Louisiana. Peru and Bolivia were treated as silver mines with the populations there simply the tools needed to keep the money flowing. It didn't really matter if you were white, black or brown, you were either in the mines or working on massive hacienda dedicated to producing luxury goods that resulted in little population growth. The extent to which the Spanish managed to retard the population growth of Peru/Bolivia, let alone other areas such as Mexico is impressive in its incompetence. Was it simply a Bourbon thing that broke the trend with newer colonies? Was the old system simply grandfathered in and not done away with during their reforms? Were the local lords simply too entrenched to be worth the effort? I've always wondered how Colombia managed to attain such a large population when it was under a similar system of rule to Peru or Mexico yet defied their demographic trends.

Well the Spanish made a lot of alliances and concessions with the locals in Louisiana and otherwise stayed out of their business while presiding over a population surge. Further, Spain allied with local farmers and fishing communities over the city of Nouvelle Orléans. This, was then Spain using Saint-Louis and the fur trading aristocrats of the Haute Louisiane with the new Cajun farmers and fishermen to counteract the Créole majority in the areas of Avoyelles down all the way to
LaBalize. Spain also set a precedent of allowing migration to the area from their colonies all over the Spanish empire or the former French empire (Saint-Domingue). Spain also were the main contributor to the immense migration from the turbulent Caribbean to Nouvelle Orléans, by building the modern Vieux Carré and setting the precedent of open movement to the colony from both Cuba and Hispaniola.

Spain, also, contrary to its original plans, kept its capital at Nouvelle Orléans instead of moving it to LaBalize or its new settlements such as Nouvelle Iberie.

Spain definitely ruled the colony more effectively than France did and this is noted to some extent by Charles Gayarré in both his L'Histoire de Louisiane his book on Spain called Felipe II.
 
why are the French ignoring the heartland of OTL US? OH, KY,TN, AR, MO, not to mention pushing the boundaries of TX and CO? the middle part of the US is NOT all malarial swamp or prairie.

But to answer the question of WI: the Brits don't stand a chance in hades of winning a north American war as decisively, if at all. France/New France will, out of necessity have a much more potent navy, preventing Britain from blocking France from supporting the colony. New France will be able to provide manpower for a native army. The native americans are more pissed off.
 
Well the Spanish made a lot of alliances and concessions with the locals in Louisiana and otherwise stayed out of their business while presiding over a population surge. Further, Spain allied with local farmers and fishing communities over the city of Nouvelle Orléans. This, was then Spain using Saint-Louis and the fur trading aristocrats of the Haute Louisiane with the new Cajun farmers and fishermen to counteract the Créole majority in the areas of Avoyelles down all the way to
LaBalize. Spain also set a precedent of allowing migration to the area from their colonies all over the Spanish empire or the former French empire (Saint-Domingue). Spain also were the main contributor to the immense migration from the turbulent Caribbean to Nouvelle Orléans, by building the modern Vieux Carré and setting the precedent of open movement to the colony from both Cuba and Hispaniola.

Spain, also, contrary to its original plans, kept its capital at Nouvelle Orléans instead of moving it to LaBalize or its new settlements such as Nouvelle Iberie.

Spain definitely ruled the colony more effectively than France did and this is noted to some extent by Charles Gayarré in both his L'Histoire de Louisiane his book on Spain called Felipe II.

to add on to what John said, Spain, while nominally more effective rulers, also were very negligent in building infrastructure, preferring to extract wealth, rather than build up a settler economy. In LA, they tried to build a population, but didn't invest enough to do it in a quick enough fashion. They were on the way to creating a viable colony when Carlos IV decided to trade it for a Queenship for his daughter in Parma, which was never delivered before C4 mucked up his own kingdom. After 2 competent rulers in a row (possibly a record in Spain for a couple of centuries), C4 completely destroyed the empire.
 
What I fail to understand is why the French are so reluctant of leaving France,don't they get free land in the New World?
What free land? French colonists were not given homesteads that they owned. They were allocated a chunk of land in a French colony that was under the rule of French officials, the local 'Seigneur' and the Church. While they had control of the land, and their kids could inherit, they couldn't sell it, or move west to new lands.
Moreover, the Church was really down on anyone escaping from their influence - so it was illegal, for instance, for a young man to go off and do some fur trading on his own.

So.... Unlike the US where you got to worship as you wished (pick a colony that matches your belief), and you could get new land for your kids when they grew up, New France did not, in fact, offer that much in the way of opportunity. Why spend the family inheritance to go to the New World, where conditions weren't a whole heck of a lot better than at home, and you had a perceptible chance of dying on the way over or before you got established?

It's actually not really surprising that Québec got so few immigrants.

As for rounding up urban poor and expecting them to be able to farm. Good recipe for most of them to starve to death the first couple of years.
 
Compared with France, Quebec winters were long and bitter. Only the toughest freemen survive in that climate. Sadly, France imposed the (feudal) siegnorial(sp?) system with peasants being little more than tenant farmers.
While recent archival searches have revealed a few black slaves imported to Quebec, slaves were generally too expensive to feed while they say around idle during long winters.

At one point, French women were so reluctant to emigrate that the French government press-ganged "loose" women from French ports and shipped them to Quebec where they were "encouraged" to marry local farmers.

French would have been far wiser to encourage farming in the Mississippi watershed. Exports would be easy (and inexpensive) with all those rivers. France did not have to worry about governing every individual farmer as long as they could tax exports passing through New Orleans or the City of Quebec.

The primary reason France lost interest in her North American colonies (after the French and Indian Wars, Seven Years War, American Revolutionary War, French Revolution, Naploeonic Wars, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, etc.) was that they were less productive than tropical colonies in India, etc.
 
Moreover, the Church was really down on anyone escaping from their influence - so it was illegal, for instance, for a young man to go off and do some fur trading on his own.

Of course, like so many prohibitions, this did not entirely succeed.

At one point, French women were so reluctant to emigrate that the French government press-ganged "loose" women from French ports and shipped them to Quebec where they were "encouraged" to marry local farmers.

The filles du roi were not prostitutes; that's an old myth.

French would have been far wiser to encourage farming in the Mississippi watershed. Exports would be easy (and inexpensive) with all those rivers. France did not have to worry about governing every individual farmer as long as they could tax exports passing through New Orleans or the City of Quebec.

The thing is, the French government didn't really want to sponsor a massive settler colony. It feared ( irrationally) that France would be "depopulated" if large numbers of settlers were sent, and (more rationally) that this would alienate the local Indian tribes and damage the fur trade, which provided the only real export commodity.

So to have a more populous New France you need the French government to change its whole mentality. The low population wasn't just because not many wanted to go to Canada, but also because the government was basically OK with that. It wanted to have just enough people there for the colony to be able to defend itself, and that was it.
 
Last edited:
Top