Which French Canada Survival Timeline?

[da Racontor]

So I have an idea for a timeline that I would work on eventually about France maintaining control over New France. And I'm trying to deiced on a POD and name. So figured I would put it to a non-binding poll.

1759, the Year without Miracles

1. POD: Basically, reverse the Annus Mirabilis of 1759 for the British. Without the string of victories provided by that year the British ultimately loose the Seven Years War.
   
   
2. Children of Plains of Abraham
   POD: The French still loose the war, but a victory at a French Battle of the Plains of Abraham prevents "Quebec" from being a negotiating piece at the treaty.

Also, feel free to suggest your own names for the timeline.

 

[unprincipled peter]

I like the year of miracles. Make it a true year of miracles and have the French win some. It really wasn't a miracle the British won. They were simply better, but no one knew it til then.

maybe reverse the Miracle of House of Brandenburg of that year, too.

 

[funnyhat]

If the POD is 1759, I think the first is difficult : the tide was turning in the Ohio valley by this point in the war. Though if France can occupy Hanover perhaps it can end up with the status quo ante bellum in the final treaty.

The second is quite possible. The battle can go differently and it can even be avoided if Montcalm decides not to engage the British and wait instead within the fortifications.

 

[Umbric Man]

I vote number two as well.

By the Battle of the Plains of Abraham Acadia and Ile-Royal have been completely conquered and mostly denuded of local Gallic settlers, ready for Yankees and Englishmen to move in, and the thrust into the Midwest is well underway and succeeding starting with the capture of Duquesne in 1758 and Detroit being captured next year (1760). Keeping Canada safe gives you nifty natural borders with French Canada being OTL United Province of Canada while Britain still makes strong gains in gaining the 1783 USA, East and West Florida, the Maritimes, Newfoundland, and Rupert’s Land.

Americans have land to settle - and reason to! No more French/Canadian encirclement, but still-existing Canada means strengthening claims to this newly-won land and so no Proclamation of 1763. Britain has Canada by the throat holding the Maritimes and Newfoundland and erasing Acadians from that part of North America, and so making it easy to cut off Canada any time they want without the expense of conquest and occupation.

Further, holding Canada come the French Revolution could be interesting in an exilic sense for various hotheads....

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

1759 is too late to pull out a French victory (at least in North America). I'd push the PoD back and have some things like having Lévis (Montcalm's right hand man, and someone who was far more willing to adapt to the context of North America) in command, and avoiding the Battle of Cartagena as to prevent the fall of Louisbourg.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

the thrust into the Midwest is well underway and succeeding starting with the capture of Duquesne in 1758 and Detroit being captured next year (1760). Keeping Canada safe gives you nifty natural borders with French Canada being OTL United Province of Canada while Britain still makes strong gains in gaining the 1783 USA, East and West Florida, the Maritimes, Newfoundland, and Rupert’s Land.

Detroit may not fall if the Capitulation of Montreal is butterflied. Quebec Act boundaries are possible (and probably something the French would push for at the negotiating table as Up-Country was key to the fur trade and would allow continued connection to Louisiana).

 

[Umbric Man]

Detroit may not fall if the Capitulation of Montreal is butterflied. Quebec Act boundaries are possible (and probably something the French would push for at the negotiating table as Up-Country was key to the fur trade and would allow continued connection to Louisiana).

That's true, but I tend to imagine the stresses of keeping *the Canadas themselves are safe as well as Rogers' Rangers being excellent at their jobs, throw in the big fish at Duquesne, Carillon and Niagara having fallen and I could see Detroit simply giving up and surrendering. Even if it doesn't, to hold so much of the *Northwest and *Southwest Territories by this point would make the Great Lake boundaries very appealing and something Anglo-Americans could argue for.

That, and Louisiana's an easy prize to give to Spain in return for losing Florida as in OTL. The vast majority of Gallic settlers in North America, especially with the lost of Acadia and Ile-Royal, are now in the St. Lawrence valley with a tiny smattering of Creoles in New Orleans to be joined by a small amount of Cajuns. Keeping that core is vital and giving up borderlands would be acceptable in such desperate conditions.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

That's true, but I tend to imagine the stresses of keeping *the Canadas themselves are safe as well as Rogers' Rangers being excellent at their jobs, throw in the big fish at Duquesne, Carillon and Niagara having fallen and I could see Detroit simply giving up and surrendering.

IDK, remember, the natives of the Old Northwest weren't party to the Treaty of Easton, so the French could put up as much of a fight for the area as they had for the Ohio Valley. It's certainly possible that the Brits get it, in fact I'd give them it 6-7/10 times. I just don't think its a given.

 

[funnyhat]

That, and Louisiana's an easy prize to give to Spain in return for losing Florida as in OTL. The vast majority of Gallic settlers in North America, especially with the lost of Acadia and Ile-Royal, are now in the St. Lawrence valley with a tiny smattering of Creoles in New Orleans to be joined by a small amount of Cajuns. Keeping that core is vital and giving up borderlands would be acceptable in such desperate conditions.

I wonder if France is returned Île Royale in the peace settlement here as it is not that significant to the British. It could also be a place to resettle the Acadiens.

 

[Umbric Man]

IDK, remember, the natives of the Old Northwest weren't party to the Treaty of Easton, so the French could put up as much of a fight for the area as they had for the Ohio Valley. It's certainly possible that the Brits get it, in fact I'd give them it 6-7/10 times. I just don't think its a given.

I can understand that - in fact I always had a sneaking suspicion Pontiac's War or some equivalent would be even worse in a timeline where France still had some presence in North America, able to actually help them with quiet supply lines.

I wonder if France is returned Île Royale in the peace settlement here as it is not that significant to the British. It could also be a place to resettle the Acadiens.

It'll be woefully overcrowded - and as the colony formally set up for the exiled French Newfoundland/Terre-Neuve/Plaisance colonists when they left the island upon its confirmation as wholly British in 1713's Treaty of Utrecht, the dual-island colony will gain an unfavorable reputation as a place not for life but for military, primarily garrisons and fortresses with two towns (Louisbourg and Port-La Joie) attached to them.

 

[funnyhat]

It'll be woefully overcrowded - and as the colony formally set up for the exiled French Newfoundland/Terre-Neuve/Plaisance colonists when they left the island upon its confirmation as wholly British in 1713's Treaty of Utrecht, the dual-island colony will gain an unfavorable reputation as a place not for life but for military, primarily garrisons and fortresses with two towns (Louisbourg and Port-La Joie) attached to them.

I could see that. Most of the Acadiens would probably end up moving inland to Canada (as many did OTL). But finding a place for the British to be rid of them (as many were living in miserable conditions in the 13 colonies in 1763) would be the ostensible purpose for the return of the island. Of course France really wants it back to have the Louisbourg fortress.

 

[Gabingston]

The French settler population in North America in 1760 was around 70,000, while the British settler population in North America at the same time was 1.5 Million, so I'd argue that it was dang-near impossible for the French to win the Seven Year War, or at least hold the Midwest long-term. The most the French could do would be hold the 1867 borders of Canada (excluding Nova Scotia), plus the aforementioned Ile Royale colony.

 

[Gabingston]

 

[Umbric Man]

The French settler population in North America in 1760 was around 70,000, while the British settler population in North America at the same time was 1.5 Million, so I'd argue that it was dang-near impossible for the French to win the Seven Year War, or at least hold the Midwest long-term. The most the French could do would be hold the 1867 borders of Canada (excluding Nova Scotia), plus the aforementioned Ile Royale colony.

This I can dig, but with the caveat the British took Fort Beausejour in 1754 and that both allowed them to take *New Brunswick and then perform the Great Upheaval with no opposition left in the Maritimes. With Ile-Royal they have a seaward path to and fro Canada as well.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

As @Gabingston pointed out, it's a real hard sell to get a France that can resist the British in the long term on North America. However, that's not to say you can't split the difference between these two scenarios by having Quebec hold out until the war is over and the British losing enough "miracles" in other areas that France can pry a negotiated benefical settlement on the continent via horse trades elsewhere. Have you considered the possability of a French victory at the Siege of Madras and folding it into a diplomatic and logistical edge the French exploit to allow them and their allies to reverse the situation on the ground in India? In that case, I could see a settlement of "No territorial change in the colonies" emerge, with France doubling down on securing her New World territories and the concept of native alliances as Britain is distracted trying to salvage the situation of an EIC crippled by it's debts accumulated during the war and having nothing to show for it

 

[unprincipled peter]

France didn't lose in North America because of the population difference. They lost because Britain owned the seas, thus cutting off French supplies and manpower, while simultaneously making the theatre a main arena of British military involvement in the war.

(Edit). The colonials were ticked off that they were shuffled aside and not much involved in the military actions beyond being a base to feed and house the British soldiers.

long term, the disparity is not as important as France establishing a population sufficient to be a deterrent. With natural growth trends, Canada could have reached that level rather quickly, and with a larger, expanding economy comes increased immigration, growing the population even faster. An expansionist British North America is going to be looking westward, not northward. That was what started the war in the first place. Britain wanted Ohio/Indiana to break communications between Canada and Louisiana. It was a perfect time. France was not ready for another major war, and if Britain waited too much longer, the population of New France was going to become a major obstacle. If they achieve that goal, while expanding to the Mississippi River, they'll have a lot on their plate, which will keep them busy for a while, giving Canada a chance to grow. If the American Revolution still occurs, it's iffy whether the French get as involved as they did OTL. For one, the big early battle which established a US as a real possibility (Saratoga) happened with British troops from Canada, which is butterflied. For another, with France faring better in the 7YW, they're not as gung ho for retaliation against the Brits, and they don't want to foster too much separatism sentiment on a continent where they still hold a colony. So, they might be satisfied with helping just enough to create a big mess for Britain, which gives time for Canada to grow.

 

[Gian]

I would however put a little wrench to this. If Britain doesn't get Canada in the Seven Years' War, it could just as easily seize them during the Napoleonic Wars (since again, the superiority of the Royal Navy compared to Napoleon's, especially after Trafalgar). Though you may add, they may just place the Bourbons there as a claimant to the French throne (which inevitably pulls a Brazil or something).

 

[Gabingston]

I would however put a little wrench to this. If Britain doesn't get Canada in the Seven Years' War, it could just as easily seize them during the Napoleonic Wars (since again, the superiority of the Royal Navy compared to Napoleon's, especially after Trafalgar). Though you may add, they may just place the Bourbons there as a claimant to the French throne (which inevitably pulls a Brazil or something).

By then the French Canadian population may have become too large to control, especially if France encourages immigration to Canada post Seven Years War (if the Napoleonic Wars even happen ITTL).

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I would however put a little wrench to this. If Britain doesn't get Canada in the Seven Years' War, it could just as easily seize them during the Napoleonic Wars (since again, the superiority of the Royal Navy compared to Napoleon's, especially after Trafalgar). Though you may add, they may just place the Bourbons there as a claimant to the French throne (which inevitably pulls a Brazil or something).

If the American Revolution occurs on schedule, than British Influence and interest in North America would be next to nil. There's also the question of just what changes in authority that Quebec City accepts during the circular firing squad period of the Revolution (see Haiti for an example for just how crazy factionalism and colonial politics could get in terms of all the regeime changes France goes through), so they may not be hostile to the Uk at all. It's economy after all more resembles that of those traditionalist regions of France that resisted Republican centeralization efforts (like Brittany and the Vendee) and there's no armies built from urban sans coulets to put them down.

 

[Gian]

If the American Revolution occurs on schedule, than British Influence and interest in North America would be next to nil. There's also the question of just what changes in authority that Quebec City accepts during the circular firing squad period of the Revolution (see Haiti for an example for just how crazy factionalism and colonial politics could get in terms of all the regeime changes France goes through), so they may not be hostile to the Uk at all. It's economy after all more resembles that of those traditionalist regions of France that resisted Republican centeralization efforts (like Brittany and the Vendee) and there's no armies built from urban sans coulets to put them down.

Hence my second point. If it ain't the British that restores the Bourbons in Quebec, maybe some Legitimist-leaning randos invite them in (and later one of them pulls a Dom Pedro and declares independence after they get restored tor the French throne, only to lose it again during the July Revolution)