With a POD some time during the American Revolution, how can you make Canada French?

[Z00M3R]

This is a question I had that popped up into my mind a few hours ago when I was scrolling through the internet. I envision a Canada where the English settlers are assimilated as French Canadians within two or three generations, and one where Canada receives a large amount of immigrants from Metropolitan France during the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. This Canada could become independent later down the road, or it couldn't -- It doesn't matter to me. What I'm focused on right now is getting some ideas from you guys about how exactly this could come about. (This French Canada would include Lower and Upper Canada, Rupert's Land, New Brunswick, and the Maritimes.)

So from what I know, in 1775 the Continental Army launched a campaign into Canada but it was ultimately unsuccessful. Also, in 1778, France allied itself with the fledgling United States and helped them gain independence. Could it have been possible for the Americans to take Quebec and Montreal before the snow fell? Maybe if the Continental Army and other patriot militias are more successful at the start of the American Revolution, we can get the French to join the war sooner. If they deploy a sizable amount of troops to Canada and spend some time and effort fighting for control of the land, the French might be able to work out an agreement with the Continental Congress in order to get Canada to themselves. I've asked this here because there are many educated folks on this site who can dive into specifics and explain faults in this idea as well as ways to make it work. On another note, I have a few questions that will be of use to me if anyone knows the answer:

- What was the population of Canada in 1775? What percent of the population was French, and what percent of the population was British?
- What is the maximum amount of French people that could realistically immigrate to Canada from France between 1780 and 1820?
- How difficult would it be to teach British Canadian children French and assimilate them (and future generations) into French Canadian culture?
- What was the general attitude in Quebec towards France itself? Would French Canadians welcome the forces of Louis XVI as liberators, or would they see them as just another occupying force?
- If France has Canada, would Spain still give Louisiana back to France in 1800? Would the French still sell the vast Louisiana Territory to the United States if they are defeated in Haiti like in our timeline?
- How bad would the butterflies be in France? It will most likely cost a pretty penny to keep a huge Canadian colony up and running, so the financial crisis in France will probably still be bad. The lower class will likely still be mistreated and under-represented in government, but will the Revolution still happen?
- If things in Europe unfold similar to how they did in our timeline, what would be the reaction in Canada to the execution of Louis XVI, the establishment of a republic, the reign of terror, and Napoleon declaring himself Emperor of the French? Would the Canadians side with the French Republic or the royalists?
- How will Britain cope with losing a colossal chunk of land in North America (even more than in our timeline)? Will they be more aggressive and expansionist in India in order to compensate for their losses, or maybe start colonies in Australia and New Zealand sooner?

Thank you if you have the time to help me out here.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

You are on to something, since keeping the loyalists from moving from the United States to Canada does help keeping Canada French speaking. But IOTL, Canada got more American immigrants than most people realize. It the reason why the culture of Ontario and the western provinces is so American.

I think to really do this, you have to have France resume control of Canada somehow, and since the French didn't even want to do this, it would require the 1770s war to turn into a curbstomp of Britain, with the British empire being dismantled afterwards.

 

[p0lish_runn3r]

maybe if the americans manage to take quebec in 1775 then they could offer it to france to try and ally them earlier. theyre culture was so different from america neither side wanted them intergated into the us so ig america would just take ontario and the maratimes while france re takes quebec. although the only way britian might agree to losing all of the american colonies (besides maybe ruperts land but is barren so who cares) is to take some french colonies somewhere else so now its up to france if they wanna trade some valuable foriegn ports for quebec

 

[Z00M3R]

You are on to something, since keeping the loyalists from moving from the United States to Canada does help keeping Canada French speaking. But IOTL, Canada got more American immigrants than most people realize. It the reason why the culture of Ontario and the western provinces is so American.

I think to really do this, you have to have France resume control of Canada somehow, and since the French didn't even want to do this, it would require the 1770s war to turn into a curbstomp of Britain, with the British empire being dismantled afterwards.

I don't think I would go so far as to dismantle the British Empire. Perhaps, it becomes a free-for-all of British colonies in the New World? The Spanish attack Belize and the Mosquito Coast, France attacks Canada, the Dutch attack British Caribbean colonies, etc. The British would probably be able to fight off the attackers in most places, what with them being the dominant European power and all, but if the Americans destroy the British at Bunker Hill and Quebec the French might be able to land in Canada some time in 1776 and quickly take remaining British strongholds.

And concerning the loyalist immigrants and American emigration to Canada, I think that will be much, much lower in this scenario, especially if the colonial government is trying to make Canada more French, not make it more Anglophone. If the Canadian population gets high enough, they might be able to copy the Manifest Destiny idea and scoot their way across the continent in covered wagons. If they reach Vancouver, they should be able to prevent a strong American or British presence from emerging in modern-day British Columbia. Speaking of that, names of cities and provinces are up for discussion. Toronteaux? Vancouvre?

 

[Z00M3R]

maybe if the americans manage to take quebec in 1775 then they could offer it to france to try and ally them earlier. theyre culture was so different from america neither side wanted them intergated into the us so ig america would just take ontario and the maratimes while france re takes quebec. although the only way britian might agree to losing all of the american colonies (besides maybe ruperts land but is barren so who cares) is to take some french colonies somewhere else so now its up to france if they wanna trade some valuable foriegn ports for quebec

I was hoping that France would get ALL of Canada, not just Quebec. They don't have that many colonies after the Seven Years' War; I think their only colonies were in the Caribbean and the Guianas.

 

[p0lish_runn3r]

hmm then ig the americans have to convince quebec to rebel. maybe britian is more anti-french after the 7 years war and this causes resentment?

 

[Z00M3R]

That is a possibility. It depends on what we're aiming for: having the British tax and oppress the French Canadians will just lead to them revolting by themselves and becoming independent. I'm trying to get Canada under French control, not trying to get Canada independent right away. Maybe if the British pass similar taxes in Canada as they did in the 13 Colonies but less harsh, the Quebecois and Acadians will take up arms to help France when French troops land.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

There is no particular reason for a French Canada to expand across the Rockies to the Pacific. And actually you can come up with some scenario where OTL British Columbia is a French colony after the British take Canada. It became a British colony for reasons that really had nothing to do with the rest of Canada.

The British name for Toronto was "York" and presumably Toronto is an Indian name, as is Ontario, so I'm not sure why its different in a French Ontario. Place names would change, but maybe not Toronto, Ottawa, or Winnipeg. Windsor, London, Hamilton, and Kingston obviously get different names.

 

[riggerrob]

Remember that the whole Seven Years War, French and Indian Wars, American Revolutionary War, French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, etc. started with over-populated Virginians trying to expand into the Ohio River Valley. Britain tried to prevent that expansion because they knew that it would drag them into a war against France.
Also remember that neither France nor England saw their American colonies as profitable. They both concluded that there was far more profit to be made in the Spice Islands of the Caribbean, Indian and Pacific Oceans.
When General Wolfe defeated General Montcalm - at the gates of Quebec City - he did not really conquer the colony of New France/Quebec. That was decided the following spring when only the (British) Royal Nay sent a relief convoy.

POD, France agrees to support the American Revolutionaries in return for control of Quebec. American colonists agree not to emmigrate to the Saint Lawrence River Valley and agree to confine themselves to the southern shores of the Great Lakes. Keep in mind that there is little agricultural land north of the St. Lawrence River. The French Governor grudgingly allows Americans to settle in the Ohio River Valley, but stubbornly retains control of New Orleans and taxation at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Remember that back then, ships were the only viable method for moving large cargos long distances. A few years later, the King Louis ? staved off the French Revolution by shipping grain from New Orleans to Paris .. up the Seine River.

My United Empire Loyalists ancestors flee to the Maritime Provinces, other English colonies or back to the British Isles. Few UELs try to settle in Upper Canada (modern day Ontario).

 

[funnyhat]

- What was the population of Canada in 1775? What percent of the population was French, and what percent of the population was British?

In 1775 there are almost no British settlers in Canada outside of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (and there were not that many in those two places either). IOTL it was the loss of the 13 colonies that led to the first big wave of anglophones to Canada, the United Empire Loyalists. If France wants to take back Canada in this war, it will inherit a population that is overwhelmingly francophone. The challenge is to get Louis XVI's government to be interested in doing this.

 

[Dan1988]

- What was the general attitude in Quebec towards France itself? Would French Canadians welcome the forces of Louis XVI as liberators, or would they see them as just another occupying force?

First off, in this period, when Québec is used, extreme care must be taken as to the name. To most Canadiens at the time, Québec referred only to the town/city which happened to house the capital, not to the whole province (as the British did), so Québec refers solely to what we now call Québec City (in French, one must rely on a distinction of grammatical gender - the province is masculine - le Québec - while the city is feminine - la Québec). Instead, the whole area outside of the former Colony of Acadia was still referred to as Canada - hence "Canadiens". This was the one thing the Continental Congress got right. As for boundaries:
>Lower/Upper Canada: At the time, both were considered part of one country (or province, from the contemporary British POV), so using a post-1791 boundary that early would be problematic; if you want to use sub-national divisions, the old Districts of Québec (covering the delta/Gulf of St Lawrence area), Trois-Rivières (covering the central area, and hence the smaller of the three), and Montréal (aka the Pays d'en Haut, or the Upper Country, which was the largest of the three divisions) could work. Notably, this tripartite technically excludes what we now call the Eastern Townships/Cantons-de-l'Est, but that would not matter that much; in this case, they'd probably be lumped with the District of Montréal.
>Rupert's Land: Was actually British by the time of the American Revolution, and is as old as the 13 Colonies themselves in terms of their time of British (or, rather, HBC) control and hence the property of the Hudson Bay Company; passing it into Canadien control could be seen as a reward from the British to an independent Canada for something, though I don't know what - so Rupert's Land would be our Patagonia equivalent
>New Brunswick, Nova Scotia: Were all part of one colony at the time, whose separate existence specifically owes itself to the Loyalist migrations because the UELs thought Nova Scotia was too corrupted by American sentiments; would probably remain in British hands
>Saint John's Island/PEI: Open question, though would probably remain Anglophone if it was part of an independent Canada
>Newfoundland: Let's not go there; there's a strong chance it remains British, but also a chance of being a battlefield if the fighting comes that close

Now, as to attitudes towards France itself - let's just say it was complicated. There were some who did follow events in France, and were horrified at the turn the Revolution took, but most Canadiens were indifferent if not hostile to the colonial authorities during the period of French rule. Even with British colonial rule and all that, your average Canadien - if she or he had any opinions at all - would not react well to the return of les maudits Français. It should also be mentioned, as well, that the Palace held the Canadiens in equal contempt during the time it colonized New France, because the Canadiens were not behaving like proper subjects of the French Crown and was a huge financial drain for little economic benefit (compared with its Caribbean colonies). So the forces of Louis XVI (or earlier) would just be another occupying force, though to be sure there will be a few - mainly those who were already privileged during that time - that would welcome the return of Royalist forces. Most Canadiens would probably want to flush the French back out of the Saint Lawrence, creating an Argentina-like scenario. (If the British decide to support the Canadiens against the French Royalists, if they figure it cannot hold Canada as a colony and figure it would be better to support Canada as an independent country, it would behoove the British Army and the Royal Navy to be discreet about it.)

Which gets into your question about assimilation, population, and all that. For the most part, Anglophones congregated either in Montréal (including the few Americans who dared to venture north of the border) or Québec. The remainder of Canada was a Francophone - and hence a Canadien - majority in terms of population. Fortunately, at this early stage, Canadien culture is still at an early enough stage that British and American people who chose to stay in Canada and learn to speak French could do so. However, don't expect a lot of immigration from France itself - historically speaking, in general many French were unwilling to leave even with worsening economic prospects. Why that is the case, we still don't know, but it's enough of a paradox that scholars have been trying to study the reasons and causes as to why this is the case. The only way you're going to get some immigration from France post-1763 is if it is targeted at specific groups (the Filles du Roi is an instructive example), and even then that won't be enough. That is why the French colonial authorities, at the time, opened immigration to New France to anyone interested in making the crossing, meaning colonial New France was a lot more cosmopolitan than we tend to admit. The next time you get a similar opportunity is early 19th century Spain, which promulgated the Royal Decree of Graces in 1815 which encouraged general European immigration to Puerto Rico, with Cuba as a secondary destination (though the more desirable of the two). I don't know enough about the history of immigration to Canada to know if that French policy was maintained by the British pre-1791; in the case of a restoration of the French regime (which would be generally unpopular) or an independent Canada, that old policy would be one of the first that would be reinstated.

- How bad would the butterflies be in France? [. . .] but will the Revolution still happen?

The French Revolution is one of those events that is going to happen regardless, because conditions under the ancien régime were that bad. Anything involving Canada would be too soon to affect butterflies that much.

- If things in Europe unfold similar to how they did in our timeline, what would be the reaction in Canada to the execution of Louis XVI, the establishment of a republic, the reign of terror, and Napoleon declaring himself Emperor of the French? Would the Canadians side with the French Republic or the royalists?

At the time, IOTL, while the French Revolution was welcome among those few who still kept tabs on events across the Atlantic, they were pretty horrified at the execution of Louis XVI. Having said that, in this case, it would be possible for Canadiens to side with the Republicans (and among them, the moderate camp), at least enough until Canada is able to break free from French rule - and in that case would get some sympathy from Americans and the British alike, even if it produces conflicting feelings in the former. The Canadiens in general were not that attracted to any French regime - France just happened to be there, and as long as left the Canadiens alone, it didn't matter which regime was over them. (Yes, I know I'm contradicting myself, but that what happens with people predisposed to pragmatism and wary of any attempts to limit their freedom.) The problem for France is that the memories are far too raw regarding their treatment pre-1763 that they would not be willing to submit themselves to that again. Canada, therefore, could be seen almost as a opposites-day Vendée uprising against the Royalists. The question thus becomes: could France be able to survive/sustain responses to simultaneous Revolutions in both Haiti and in Canada?

 

[Dan1988]

- How will Britain cope with losing a colossal chunk of land in North America (even more than in our timeline)?

They would still have huge chunks of land out West and all that, so it's not a total loss. As for Canada itself - the British would probably try to make the best out of the bad situation so that it could be used to its advantage. Not to make the UK as the good guys in all of this, but if given a chance to back resistance to French rule, they'd take it.

 

[Z00M3R]

What are some motivations that would get the French to want to seize Canada? What resources did Quebec, Ontario, Rupert's Land, and the Maritime provinces have at the time that might be attractive to European monarchs? If the French were motivated enough to colonize it in the first place, it might be possible to have them try to reconquer it (and also take the Maritimes) for the same reasons they started settling it a couple centuries back.

Also, assuming that Canada is a French colony starting in 1780, when would they eventually break away? Would they declare independence after the execution of Louis XVI? Or after the coronation of Napoleon? It'd be cool to see Napoleon landing and fighting in Canada, but that'd probably mean that Haiti breaks away successfully.

Thanks for all the answers, right now I am thinking of ways France could encourage migration to Canada.

 

[GameBawesome]

What about if Benedict Arnold captures Quebec City in 1775? All of OTL Lower Canada could possibly be returned to France as a gesture for an alliance (I can imagine Upper Canada be divided earlier), and the capture of Canada definitely effect the career of Benedict Arnold.

 

[VMOLTKE1996]

It occurs to me that France might have an interest in Canada again if there is some kind of enthusiasm to find the famous Northwest Passage again. As for migration, I suppose it could become a sanctuary for Catholics and political refugees after the events of the French Revolution.

 

[Kerney]

I think the only way is to have a French, not an American Army in Quebec. I understand during the revolution a French Army would have been seen as liberators while the British were preferred to Americans as the Brits were keeping Canada from being overwhelmed demographically. Let the Brits keep the Maritimes. Have the French end up with the rest of otl Canada except for British Columbia, which ends up American, Russian, or British (Due to the Royal Navy).

Do you get Louis the XVI to keep it? An Army on the ground does it, by why is a big question.

Does it stay French? Possibly. The French in colonial times showed a talent for turning the English Protestant Captives into French Catholic Subjects and the Voyeagers were on the leading edge of exploration. After the conquest the French Canadians had lots of babies avoiding the fate of New Orleans and also turning the children of immigrants into francophones.

I think the latter was due to French Catholic influence of the schools were an Irish Catholic Mary Jane, fresh off the boat in Montreal, age 6, is a 15 year old Marie Jeanette after 8-9 years of Catholic School.

 

[galanx]

One problem is that the Patriots only felt free to revolt against Britain because they didn't have the threat of French Canada in the north, Would they make the turn to invite a (shudder) Catholic power back in?

 

[Kerney]

One problem is that the Patriots only felt free to revolt against Britain because they didn't have the threat of French Canada in the north, Would they make the turn to invite a (shudder) Catholic power back in?

Premise is, French loose French and Indian War. Then, in the course of the ARW, the French retake Canada (But not presumably, the Ohio Valley). Loyalists go elsewhere, and are probably replaced by French Revolution Refugees.

 

[Dan1988]

What are some motivations that would get the French to want to seize Canada?

There really wouldn't be any unless if that was the price of American support (historically, IOTL, the French were not all that enthused about going back). Having said that, though, France did retain one bit of the former New France - Saint Pierre et Miquelon, which is just literally a couple of kilometers offshore from Newfoundland. If there was any motivation in France to go back to Canada, it would be in revenge for the British sacking of SPM in 1778 (where they deported the entire population back to France), which was part of a longer-standing conflict over fishing rights in the Grand Banks and also in retaliation for French support of the Americans during the ARW. IOTL, France did not respond to that except in 1783, when they got those islands back; ITTL, OTOH, because it happened in the same year France signed a treaty with the Americans, that would be the excuse for France to re-enter North America, thus attempting to retake Canada (though not Acadia - aka the Maritimes - because by that point it had been thoroughly Anglicized, and those Acadians who returned mainly wanted to be left alone, and not Rupert's Land because that was private property of the HBC). That would be the main motivation, not any sentiment of reviving the colonial empire in North America nor anything like that, probably because France would have already known by now that it was not that well liked by the Canadiens even when France was originally there.

What resources did Quebec, Ontario, [. . .] have at the time that might be attractive to European monarchs?

Apart from Quebec and Ontario being modern names for what was originally singularly called "Canada", w/o exception, . . .

There really wasn't any, because originally France wanted to find the quickest way to Asia outside of Portuguese control, and failed. What New France did have was beaver fur, which was a bedrock of its economy, but by the 1760s the fur trade had already collapsed because there was too much of a glut in the market. Therefore, Canada was more of a financial burden for France than, say, Saint-Domingue or Guadeloupe, because it comparatively took a long time to recoup any investment in the fur trade. So, in all the classic reasons for colonization, France wasn't really motivated to do anything of that sort; they just happened to be there and make the most of the situation.

Which is when we get into the real motivation for Canada's and Acadia's existence (and why Acadia would not be resurrected and remain a British colony, thanks to ethnic cleansing, thus leaving one potential opening for Loyalist refugees open). If we believe one of David Hackett Fischer's recent books, the main reason for the existence of New France as conceived by people like Champlain was essentially to serve as an "anti-France". At a time when religious warfare was tearing Europe apart, France included, Champlain envisioned New France as being a more idealized version of what France could be if none of that happened - all the more so because Champlain would need the support of the local Aboriginal peoples in order to allow Canada to exist in the first place. As a result, New France was different from all other French colonies, past and present, because of that singular mission, which was well ahead of its time. It was also what created much of the friction between the Canadiens and the French colonial government because the latter did not believe in the vision and insisted on governing New France as had always been the case in Old France, meaning the recreation of the seigneurial system and all that upon the founding of the colony (which were very much unpopular among Canadiens). So it was a mutual "good riddance" to each other when the French left, and why IOTL the French were smart enough to resist taking up control over Canada again.

Also, assuming that Canada is a French colony starting in 1780, when would they eventually break away?

Within the decade, if not during the Revolution, and the Canadiens would definitely get foreign support, including putting the Catholic Church in a bind because of France possibly perceiving the local Catholic hierarchy as too "pro-British" - even if that was emphatically not the case and was more to do with the Catholic Church's obsession with its survival. For the most part, France was that unpopular in Canada, and all the more so with some distance of time.

Would they declare independence after the execution of Louis XVI? Or after the coronation of Napoleon?

If independence was delayed to coincide with the French Revolution, I'd assume before the Reign of Terror went into full swing, so either before or after the execution of Louis XVI. By the time of Nappy's coronation, Canada would already be independent.

 

[Lusitania]

Sorry but the possibility of a nearly bankrupt France wanting to regain a money loosing colony would not work. France would of needed to get British sugar colonies in the Caribbean to be enticed.

remember that at end of the 7 year war France was offered to choose which of its 3 French American colonies it wanted to keep. It’s choices were New France, access to the Grand Banks and Caribbean sugar colonies. All except New France provided the French government with profit and taxes. New France was a money loosing colony.

Therefore a weaker France, with even more financial problems will not assume a money loosing colony. It had no interest in sending settlers there. Would of had to pay to send and maintain troops in colony.

even the British after the 7 year war did not treat New France with great enthusiasm. It was stuck with the colony. It did nothing to encourage English settlers there. It wanted to govern the colony as cheaply as possible so it struck a deal with the church and colonial powers. Work with us. Keep the peasants docile and we support your control and power of the people. All we ask is control trade which the church snd seigneurial land owners cared little about.