Could the American Revolution still be pulled off even if France still held places in Canada (French America above the Ohio Country; basically French Canada still borders OTL U.S.-Canada borders and has lands like Ontario and west of that)? Or would the colonists rather suck it up to prevent the French from taking advantage of them?
Would There Still Be An American Revolution If France Still Held Parts of Canada?
- Thread starter TickTock The Witch's Dead
- Start date
Probably not, but given the butterflies involved, it's hard to be certain for more than middle term. French and Indian threat were what keep British North America in British obedience.
Heck, France actually given out Canada because it was estimated that it would remove the main reason Northern American colonists were loyal to Britain, apparently rightfully so.
Heck, France actually given out Canada because it was estimated that it would remove the main reason Northern American colonists were loyal to Britain, apparently rightfully so.
So you're saying the French wanted to give up New France at the end of the 7YW? Do you have a source on that?
France was given the choice of losing Guadeloupe or Canada they choose the sugar island, that shows you they didn't care about Canada. It was a poorly populated, empty, and expensive colony.
It's less that France wanted to give up Canada (while it was seen as a big empty useless colony), than that if something should be abandoned, it should be Canada for middle term geopolitical benefits, and certainly not the much wealthy sugar-producing Carribean islands.
Choiseul (1761) said:
Choiseul (1765) said:
It worked, but kinda backfired.
Last edited:
If France agreed to abandon its Native American allies would that still make the odds likely?
Indeed.
Although, on Choiseul's behalf, he did his best to adress pressing issues in France, and managed to built something that politically, diplomatically and militarily to be well considered.
His main problem was being too liberal and willing to concede absolutist features, which made Louis XV growing wary of him and finally putting him away (and Louis XVI, thinking his great father and his father were right about him, didn't really wondered about it) eventually replaced by ministers less able and skilled, and more in line with absolutism.
Would have been replaced by someone more competent, and Bourbons having a functioning brain, he could have been right on both. Or at least, less wrong on the latter.
Last edited:
It seems Pitt wanted to take territories, no matter what, to make a political point at home and to try adress colonist concerns, as they were more dependent strategically and defensivly from Britain than Canada was from France.
So, giving that it was sound to give up Canada, and troll Britain if a territory had to be given to please Pitt.
No. Choiseul was not a strong reformer. Louis XV did not fire ChoiseulChoisel because he was a reformer but because he discovered Choiseul was secretly negotiating with Spain France's intervention in a war against Britain over the Falklands. Which was basically high treason.
The true reformers were Machaut and then Maupeou 20 years later.
That depends on how much the french keep.
But there is one thing that you can't scratch from the picture : whatever the different result of the seven years war you choose, the british government is going to want to have the american settlers to pay new taxes because it badly needs to find new resources to repay part of the huge debt it contracted during the war.
And you still have the fact that, after 150 years of neglegt, the american settlers don't want to be ruled by a small bunch of aristocrats and bankers in the far-distant metropolis.
So of course, thinking long terme they have an interest in wiping out any foreign presence blocking westward immigration. But before adressing long term issues, they have to swallow paying taxes for a distant very small oligarchy.
And you know that the famous "read my lips : no new taxes !" had many forebears.
Were the french a threat to the british colonies in north America ?
I don't think so. The french just prevented further expansion for the settlers. But they did not prevent them from having a prosperous and peaceful life.
So I don't think a strong french presence continuing in America would necessary butterfly away an american revolution.
Let's say the french win the battle of the plains of Abraham and all the following battles and that they're able to retain all their territories. If they show peaceful intentions towards british colonies, you still could have a revolt against Britain's demanding taxes.
Things might be different if the french win some kind of unprobable crushing victory and, for example, take Maine, Vermont, the norther part of New Hampshire and western parts of the States of New-York and Pennsylvania, and force the british settlers to leave those lost territories.
In this case, it seems quite sure that the colonies would be afraid enough to stick to the metropolis.
Saphroneth
Banned
Didn't the Seven Years War, or at least Brit involvement in it, start *because* of the colonists?
Ungrateful buggers...
Ungrateful buggers...
It's
Banned
Your analysis would be helped if you could broaden your historical knowledge outside the classic American Disneyland superpower mythology that pervades popular American perceptions of the period to this day. For instance, your use of emotive language- "a small bunch of aristocrats" - do you mean British parliamentarians- you know, the House of Commons (By law, NOT lords)? Were the rich white (mostly) slave-owning male signatories of the DoI interested in creating a socialist egalitarian state? Spare me!
Of course it's more long-term for some colonies than for others.
For New England and NY (and to some extent PA) it's not just a matter of future expansion. The French and Indians are breathing round their necks here and now.
Could we see an American Revolution developing "in reverse", with the Southern colonies (now remote from the French danger, esp if Ft Duquesne still falls to Britain) taking the lead and New England more reluctant - perhaps a "Charleston Tea party" instead of a Boston one?
It's
Banned
Because France's support for the American rebels was for them damage control after losing their NA colonies. They did not lose in Canada as part of some cunning grand strategy. Come on, dj!
Did my riposte really warrant a "why"?
France would rather have a big empire than wreck someone else's, even a rival like Britain's.
Saphroneth
Banned
That actually doesn't conflict with
Remember, there's losing the war and then, separate to that, there's negotiating the peace. France had the choice between a sugar island and all of Canada - they kept the sugar island.
While revenue is a part of it - the sugar island made merde-tons of money - the idea that messing with Britain was another part of it is not impossible.
To make things clear, I am not american.
Now the fact is that the british ruling oligarchy was a very very small oligarchy in which the high nobility allied with the prominent financiers and merchants had a controling position. Remember the number of voters in William Pitt's constituency : 7 voters ! If I say this is not a broad political base, this is an euphemism.
The fact is that the rich americans were not aristocrats and that they were not integrated within the aristocracy.
The fact is that, though rich, the leaders of the american revolution and their supporters turned out to be quite happy to snatch away the immense properties that a few british aristocrats held in the 13 colonies.
This is not a matter of socialism, rich or poor. This was a matter of power and divergence of interests.
This is funny because I always thought it was the french and the indians that had the feeling that the inhabitants of the british colonies were breathing round their necks, given the reality of demographics, given the identity of those who tried to take territories from the others and who took initiative for it.
It was quite an exacerbated and exceptional sense of insecurity, the kind of which thinks that any foreign presence is a threat.
Last edited: