1763: shall we take Canada—or Guadeloupe?

Great Debates
1

In 1763, after the British won the Seven Years’ War (known as the French and Indian War here in the States,) there was discussion in Parliament over what territorial concessions to take. The obvious choice was Canada; it was France’s biggest and most valuable chunk of land in the Western hemisphere. And that, we all know, is what Britain took.

However, there was a faction in Parliament that insisted that taking the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe would be better. It’s a small island that would give Britain a leg up on the sugar trade, yes, but there was a larger design in play here. The argument was that the threat of the French in Canada kept the colonists to the south in line. If the French were removed from North America, then the colonies would be more prone to erupt into unrest. The faction that made this argument lost, of course, and twelve years later, on the nineteenth of April in '75…

I believe that if Britain had let the French keep Canada, the American Revolution probably wouldn’t have happened—at least, it wouldn’t have happened when it did. Eventually the American colonists would have clamored for more autonomy, just like the Canadians started to ask for in the 1830s and 40s, and like other British colonies asked for later on. However, in the final accounting, this might have meant a smaller chunk of English-speaking America. On the other hand, during the next Continental war, Britain would most likely have taken sparsely-populated Louisiana from the French, as well as Canada, eventually. And who knows? Britain might eventually have seen good cause for a war for the sparsely-populated section of western North America.

Which leads to another question: would that be the Republic of Mexico to the south, or would it still be Spanish territory? If Britain had managed to hold on to North America, would the Spanish have had less trouble holding on to South America? Spain did actively work to help the American revolutionaries in the 1770s, while Britain actively worked to help the South American revolutionaries in the 1820s. Were these independent states in the Western hemisphere inevitable? Or would their colonial masters eventually have seen the need to give them representation? Or was a change in representation actually inevitable for these colonies? Would a better monarch than King George III have mitigated the conflict to the point that there’d be thirteen or so more North American members of the British Commonwealth today? Would the North American stability have helped Latin American stability?

One constant I see in all this is that the French Revolution was coming, and would have happened whether they still held on to Canada or not. That would likely have meant the rise of Buonaparte, too (but, depending on how the Battle of the Nile turned out, he wasn’t an inevitability, either.)

Counterfactual history is always tricky, especially when you move too far along in time from your starting point. The variables multiply with each year, with each month, requiring you to figure more possibilities than you would have time to write down. I believe that if the British wanted to keep everything from Boston to Savannah in line, they would have done well to keep a threat—real or perceived—in the region. They couldn’t have done much better than the French presence to the north.

2

It does not seem to me that the colonies were particularly frightened of the French in NorthAm at the time. This would seem to be a requirement for your thesis. Do you have some evidence or proof of this?

3

I just happened to find two monkey wrenches under my computer table. Let me throw them out here to make this more difficult.

First, I’m not sure that allowing Canada to remain French would have been a serious threat to a rising British North American collection of colonies. By the time of 1775, the former New France still had no more than 8,000 people, even including a handful of British immigrants. The wars fought on the frontier between 1763 and 1765 had disrupted many of the alliances among the Indian nationas who had sided with the French and the French might not have appeared to be the source of the friction between settlers and Indians. The Iroquois who were the primary Indian antagonists in the North during the American War for Independence were allied to the British specifically because they had been enemies of the French and the British promised to prevent their colonists from expanding into Iroquois territory, so a “French and Indian” threat was not particularly viable. The southern nations (Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw, etc.) had never been allied with the French and were not considered part of any “French” problem. The Shawnee in Ohio had allied with the French, but the alliance was recognized as an opportunistic one and they, too, were not seen as a “French” issue. (The Shawnee also allied with the British in an effort to halt colonial encroachment.)

Once Britain had taken Canada, they passed the Quebec Act that actually gave the local seigneurs more autonomy than they had enjoyed under the tight rein of the French monarch and his bureaucracy. Without the Quebec Act, the French Canadians might have been more likely to join the rebellious British colonies. (This was not a given, of course, as the two groups still had to get past their rather rabid religious disputes.)

Second, I am not sure that the French Revolution was inevitable. The view of the tiny American colonies standing up to the powerful British throne made a great impression on many French. Any number of changes could have arisen in France that would not have resulted in the Revolution that actually occurred.

4

Another point: the revolutionaries made an alliance with France to break the English. A rench colony would not have been a great fear. Moreover, there’s no reason to assume that they’d be more frightened of France than of England, and France had no reason to invade and risk uniting the colonies and the brits.

5

The alternate history anthology *Arrowdreams* (which I strongly recommend) has a story along similar lines, “For Want of a Nail” by Dave Duncan, though it involves a British defeat at the Plains of Abraham rather than a different choice of spoils. The implications for the burgeoning American revolution are profound.

6

I think that peace was probably easier to get in 1763 by returning the sugar islands to France, which almost certainly got more immediate financial benifit from the Caribbean than from Canada (and Louisiana).

I think that the effect of returning Canada to France again would probably have embittered the colonists though. Even if rationally the threat of the French was diminished by the growth of the colonies, memories would linger. At the end of prior French and Indian wars New England colonists in particular were outraged by the British returning various “Gibraltars of the West” that had been captured by the expenditure of colonial blood and money (in conjunction with British forces). Whether fear of the French bogeyman would outweigh outrage at British high handedness is a decent question.

It should be noted that during the Revolution the French debated whether they should attempt to retake Canada in any peace deal. The idea was rejected. As long as Canada was British the US would be a free agent. A French Canada would most likely lead to extremely close US/UK relations, given American francophobia (especially in New England).

Hmm. If France did retain Canada and Louisiana and had a liberal immigration policy as opposed to the British proclamation line barring further expansion might there have developed a number of Texas type republics - states growing out of anglophone colonies in (in this case) French territories?

IIRC about 1/2 of the French government debt in 1788-9 was from funding the American Revolution and associated activities. If my recollection is correct than there would probably not the same desperate financial need for taxes leading to Louis XVI summoning the estates general, at least not nearly as soon. (I have also seen analyses that essentially portrayed the revolution as continuing the French state’s ongoing centralization.)

7

Actually, by the time of the Conquest, New France had more than 50,000 inhabitants, according to its Wikipedia article. And this is what I remember from my history classes. But indeed, British North America had much more colonists (around one million, if I remember correctly). I also don’t think New France was seen as a major threat by the American colonists.

8

You’re right. 8,000 was an estimate of the number of British settlers in Quebec (with a similar number in Nova Scotia and New Bruswick) around 1775.

*BAD memory. No wine for you, tonight. *

9

I think we need to make a distinction between the various parts of New France–Canada proper (the land that eventually became Canada), “eastern Louisiana” (the U.S. from the Mississippi to the Appalachians), and “western Louisiana” (from the Mississippi to the Rockies).

As long as the French were in Canada and eastern Louisiana, they were a tremendous irritant to the American colonies, and they did help keep the colonies close to Britain. They subsidized and armed Indians on the frontier and their forts and trading posts hemmed in the colonists spreading west. The first shots of the Seven Years War (in 1754, two years before war broke out in Europe) were fired in western Pennsylvania.

But returning eastern Louisiana to France would have been a non-starter. It would have been like returning Kuwait to Iraq after the Gulf War. A peace that returned eastern Louisiana would have been no peace at all.

As it happens, western Louisiana was ceded to Spain at the peace table. That left Canada. And I don’t think a New France restricted to Canada would have been enough of a threat to keep the colonists bound to Britain.

The greatest impact might have come later on. With what is now Canada divided between England (in the Maritimes and the Hudson’s Bay realms) and France (in Quebec), neither side might have been strong enough to defend the western hinterlands against American expansion. We might today have a small English-speaking Canada in the Maritimes and an independent French-speaking Quebec, with the United States occupying everything else north of the Rio Grande.

10

ISTM that the most Francophobic and anti-Catholic section of the 13 colonies was far and away New England, who had always had to deal with the threat of invasion from Canada. They were not nearly as concerned about matters at the frontier. I don’t think that they would realize how badly/thoroughly Montcalm had destroyed the traditional native/French cooperation. They would just know that the old forts and invasion paths were returned to the French. Again.

If you (as the British) are going to ignore New York/New England concerns wrt Canada, why should you pay that much more attention to the rest of the colonies, especially if you are going incur the wrath of those colonists anyways with the proclamation line barring westward expansion past the Appalachians, a (largely bogus) French threat could externalize at least some of the resentment. And profits from the Sugar islands should pay for any modest delta in garrison costs.

11

Oh, sure, blame Canada. :smiley:

12

Pretty much the first thing the newly organized, at War “United States”, did was invade Canada in 1775. When the Invasion failed, Canada became a great base from which to organize and to launch attacks. If Canada had never been British, America would have one less invasion vector to defend & could have focused solely on the seaboard. It would have made French re-supply of the Colonies easier and, I imagine, would have brought earlier and better French assistance. I think it would have been a shorter war.

Also, more speculatively, thoughts on this time line (where I disagree) : the French Revolution/Napoleon would have been profoundly different – What if Louie had shipped unhappy subjects to Canada en mass? Would the Quebecois have risen in Rebellion too? What if France (Louie or Nap.) made a play for the nascent colonies? (would they run to England for protection?) What if Napoleon Invaded? What if Napoleon sold Canada as part of the Louisiana Purchase?

OP points to a neat, pivotal event, that leads to many cool ‘What ifs’

13

But would have France supported the american rebels if she have had herself colonies in north America? It was creating a bad precedent…

14

But if Canada was under French rule, would France give aid to America?

What would Canada’s response be to their rulers pushing for the independence of their neighbors while still trying to maintain control over Canada?

15

you know, if I had used preview, I might have noticed that clairobscur made the same point.

16

I think no matter what the outcome of Guadeloupe, North America would ever be the secondary theater to the “real war” … Meaning Europe. Essentially North America, the 18th century version of fly-over country, would be primarily exploited to to screw the real enemy, and if a few colonists get restless because we do it mes enfants, well C’est la Vie, No? In short, I think the opportunity to stick to England would be too good to pass up.

Besides, for partially just these reasons Louis IRL didn’t see the danger (the Ideological danger and the financial expenditure danger) that helping the Americans would have at home … I wouldn’t expect Mr. Let Them Eat Cake (I know she really didn’t say it) to clue in to colonists

17

Free colonies with a debt to France, even with a French Canada, would have been too good a chance to pass up. Aside from which, the British were already moving into Canada around the French. In any case, the French would have seen it as breaking the British colonial ring stretching from Canada to the Carribean.