Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[suburbanite]

I think it's important to remember that the UK was in a position of global hegemony basically from the Battle of Trafalgar until the beginning of World War 1. No other empire in the world had to ability to project power like they did over that 100 year timespan. Given how close the War of 1812 was under that geopolitical scenario, imagining Quebec and France resisting a potentially more emboldened imperialistic USA seems unlikely. After Napoleon's final defeat, there would have been a couple decades where the US would have ample opportunity to invade Quebec, and there likely wouldn't have been 10,000 continental French troops to land in the Chesapeake or at New Orleans to shift the balance of power.

Depends how much you want to alter this alternative history, but I think the most likely outcome if Quebec never became part of the British Empire after the Seven Years War, was that it would've have just been conceded along with France's other colonial holdings 40 years later at the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

[O-tacular]

Just watched Prey (The Predator prequel that was filmed around Calgary) and had to laugh at the evil Boucherons fur trappers. The french they spoke was interesting. In any case were there French Canadien fur trappers operating in the great plains and foothills of the United States in the 1700's?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

Maybe French settlers would have been more interested in moving to Virginia.

That's highly debatable. By and large the French were simply not interested in moving abroad, whether in cold or hot climates. How many French people migrated to the USA? The smallest number among all European countries.

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree that in a scenario where tons of settlers move in from France, they spread through the Great Lakes area and down the Mississippi, and Britain and the US completely leave them alone they would eventually grow to become a larger population over hundreds of years.

In our timeline however Britain took Port Royal then Louisbourg then Quebec City.

Population growth in the beginning of European colonial settlements in North America was due to immigration primarily. France had more than twice the population of the British Isles, so it could have sent 1.5 million people to New France when the British Isles sent 600,000 people to the 13 colonies. In the real world, however, France sent less than 10,000 people. One big reason was because at the time the royal government wrongly believed that the French population was declining (a myth that was only dispelled in the 2nd half of the 18th century when more serious demographic research started to appear and showed, based on birth returns, that the French population was increasing, and not decreasing as had been believed before). So the royal authorities did not want many people to migrate to North America, which would deplete an already shrinking population of France (they thought). This is why Colbert sent the bare minimum of settlers required just to keep the colony afloat, but no more (despite requests from the governor of New France).

With a more pro-active policy and the arrival of 1.5 million French immigrants (which would have been nothing particularly extraordinary, just something equal to the numbers that left the British Isles relative to their population), the British could not have conquered New France in 1760. Those 1.5 million immigrants would probably have been around 10 million people living from Acadia to New Orleans by then, dwarfing the 2.5 million living in the 13 British colonies.

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think a New Orleans based settlement would have worked out well in the 1700's/1800's either due to tropical diseases. Both ends of the French colonial areas had a relatively small carrying capacity for European settlers in the pre-1900 era.

St Domingue is a counter example. It was much more tropical and unhealthy than Louisiana, and yet it attracted more French settlers than all of New France combined (100,000 French people migrated to St Domingue, vs less than 10,000 who migrated to New France), and was extremely prosperous (for the White settlers that is). The largest French city in the Americas was not Québec City but Cap-Français (now Cap-Haïtien), in St Domingue. In 1759, Montréal and Québec City had 5,000 inhabitants each, but Cap-Français had between 15,000 and 20,000 inhabitants.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

In retrospect, I guess one could say it was smarter to invest militarily in the motherland and its immediate vicinity, since nearly all colonies of all the colonial powers are gone now; France might be smaller at the moment if it had invested less on the Continent and more in Canada a couple centuries ago. (Canada would have gone its own way since then anyways.)

France had the means to do both, due to its size. It hosted one-quarter of Europe's population, its economy was twice the size of the British economy, and larger than the Holy Roman Empire. It could have been both the largest land power and largest maritime power (in fact, that's what it was between 1660 and 1700, when Colbert turned the French Navy into the largest European navy at the time, but that financial effort collapsed after 1700, and under Louis XV the French Navy was chronically underfunded).

The main problem was more the lack of a good taxation system (the wealthiest parts of French society did not pay taxes), a less developed financial system (which starved the royal government of funding, whereas the British government could run a huge public debt), and a lack of interest for overseas and maritime issues by the central government, which was led by "terriens", landed aristocracy living far from the coastlines and not really aware or interested in maritime issues.

This has always been the failure of French elites (with a few exceptions): the lack of interest in maritime issues. A fascinating atlas of the maritime history of France was published recently. I highly recommend it. It's quite enlightening, and reading it lots of things suddenly start to make sense.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I think it's important to remember that the UK was in a position of global hegemony basically from the Battle of Trafalgar until the beginning of World War 1. No other empire in the world had to ability to project power like they did over that 100 year timespan. Given how close the War of 1812 was under that geopolitical scenario, imagining Quebec and France resisting a potentially more emboldened imperialistic USA seems unlikely. After Napoleon's final defeat, there would have been a couple decades where the US would have ample opportunity to invade Quebec, and there likely wouldn't have been 10,000 continental French troops to land in the Chesapeake or at New Orleans to shift the balance of power.

Depends how much you want to alter this alternative history, but I think the most likely outcome if Quebec never became part of the British Empire after the Seven Years War, was that it would've have just been conceded along with France's other colonial holdings 40 years later at the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

I don't think it's that simple. The problem with alternative history, is as soon as you deviate from real history, it opens so many possibilities, it becomes quickly impossible to predict how things could have turned out. For example, had France kept Canada in the Seven Years' War, probably there would not have been a US Revolution, the 13 colonies would have kept tight to the motherland to protect them against those evil 'Papists' up north. No US Revolution means no entry of France in the American War of Independence (which ruined France and led to the French Revolution), so probably no French Revolution (at least not in 1789, and not in the form it took), so no Napoleon (who would have remained an obscure Corsican officer), and no Napoleonic Wars.

Other things would have happened, but what exactly is hard to say, as it depends on so many factors.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

St Domingue is a counter example. It was much more tropical and unhealthy than Louisiana, and yet it attracted more French settlers than all of New France combined (100,000 French people migrated to St Domingue, vs less than 10,000 who migrated to New France), and was extremely prosperous (for the White settlers that is).

You need to look at natural increase or decline in the local population too, not just how many settlers moved somewhere. I would guess that while it may have been lucrative for a lucky few for a while, French settlers who moved to Haiti had a very high death rate (10% per year not unheard of). Today the population is mostly African, not European, and the French settlers eventually left or were killed.

There's a pretty clear pattern of European settlement in temperate areas working out well whereas the high mortality colonies that became extractive resource operations did not do so well. A lot of Latin America is in that second camp.

I think you might be mixing up eras when you talk about 1.5 million people (or I guess 750,000 if you are scaling by population?) moving from the UK and then the possibility of 1.5 million moving from France before 1760. The British colonies didn't even have 1.5 million inhabitants in total around that time. I would imagine that areas like New York or Massachusetts had a lot of natural increase in the 1700's just like Quebec.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think you might be mixing up eras when you talk about 1.5 million people moving from the UK and then the possibility of 1.5 million moving from France before 1760. The British colonies didn't even have 1.5 million inhabitants in total around that time. I would imagine that areas like New York or Massachusetts had a lot of natural increase in the 1700's just like Quebec.

Reread. What I said is 600,000 people migrated from the British Isles to North America between 1600 and 1775. France had more than twice the population of the British Isles, so that's equivalent to 1.5 million French people migrating to North America.

[Acajack]

I think it is worth mentioning that those 10,000 French settlers from the 1600s or 1700s have between 15 and 20 million descendants today.

With more sustained immigration from France over a longer period and also other sources (all of which would have Frenchified here), an independent Québec could very well be a northern francophone version of Argentina today. For better or for worse.

[Nashe]

Remind me of what the original intent of this was? That Montreal would have more population than Toronto if France had given a darn 400 years ago?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Reread. What I said is 600,000 people migrated from the British Isles to North America between 1600 and 1775. France had more than twice the population of the British Isles, so that's equivalent to 1.5 million French people migrating to North America.

I just don't think numbers like this mean a lot on their own as far as determining what colonies did well or didn't do well or where the demographics ended up. You pointed out that 100,000 French settlers moved to Haiti. It's true that you need some settlers but in the long run the development is bounded by resources and carrying capacity (resources + technology). In the 18th century these bounds were way lower along the St. Lawrence than along the Atlantic coastal plain.

If you did want to really pick this apart you'd need to add more detail, broken down more clearly into time periods. France started to clearly lose North American territory by the 1710's.

I wonder if there were actually more French settlers who moved to the American colonies in the 1700's than to Quebec. There was outmigration from Quebec in later periods. The settler void left by France wasn't filled in much by Americans though there were some.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

With more sustained immigration from France over a longer period and also other sources (all of which would have Frenchified here), an independent Québec could very well be a northern francophone version of Argentina today. For better or for worse.

It wouldn't be called Québec anyway, it was not called Québec under French-rule, but simply Canada.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

It wouldn't be called Québec anyway, it was not called Québec under French-rule, but simply Canada.

Of course. Good point, as today's Québécois are descendants of the original Canadiens.

[someone123]

In North America, France was kinda like the Civ player who picks the wrong starting location.

It made sense for fur trading but it turned out that the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes + Mississippi system took a lot longer to develop agriculturally and industrially than the flat accessible land by the Atlantic. By the time the interior opened up in the 1800's with canal projects and then railways it was too late.

France repeated a mini version of this with Louisbourg, which was a kind of resource colony designed to aid in shipping and the fishery (which was more financially valuable than Quebec in a way similar to how Haiti was). This screwed them over again since that rocky area could support only a small population and eventually got completely out-grown by mainland NS which has more farmland. France also controlled its valued colonies more tightly while the British model allowed for more growth. Eventually the chaotic model of letting people move wherever uncovers more resources and allows for more population.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

I just don't think numbers like this mean a lot on their own as far as determining what colonies did well or didn't do well or where the demographics ended up. You pointed out that 100,000 French settlers moved to Haiti. It's true that you need some settlers but in the long run the development is bounded by resources and carrying capacity (resources + technology). In the 18th century these bounds were way lower along the St. Lawrence than along the Atlantic coastal plain.

Rural Québec was able to nourish 5 million people in the end of the 19th century with a very rudimentary agriculture, so surely it could have nourished way more than 60,000 settlers in 1760.

Besides, if 1.5 million French people had migrated to New France, they would not have stayed in the St Lawrence valley, they would have developed agricultural land in what's today Ontario, as well as the Ohio territory and all the Mississippi valley down to New Orleans. Largely enough land to nourish 10 million people by 1760.

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder if there were actually more French settlers who moved to the American colonies in the 1700's than to Quebec.

French people stopped migrating to Canada after 1700. Almost all the 10,000 settlers from whom the 10 million + people of French Canadian ancestry descend today arrived in the 17th century. After 1700 there were only movements of troops between France and New France.

No French people migrated to the 13 British colonies in the 18th century either. The main destination of French settlers in the 18th century were the French sugar colonies in the Caribbean, as well as a failed attempt at colonizing French Guiana (the royal government actually sent more settlers to French Guiana than to New France, most of whom died due to yellow fever and malaria).

[Acajack]

It's hard to determine which posts here might not be a bit strategic in the sense that they emphasize the alleged total inevitability of a French-speaking country being dead-on-arrival in northern North America.

As if there were (and of course *are*) no alternatives to the status quo - therefore making the dream of independence a non-starter, both back then and today.

Anyway, it doesn't matter because almost no one here is Québécois, and even if it is a smart group this can be a bit of a strategic group therapy echo chamber when it comes to this subject.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

No French people migrated to the 13 British colonies in the 18th century either.

Some French speakers moved to British colonies. They were mostly Protestant or came over after the American Revolution. So I guess one could argue they may have been pushed away from Quebec by those factors.

Napoleon's older brother had an estate in New Jersey, although that would have been early 19th century.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's hard to determine which posts here might not be a bit strategic in the sense that they emphasize the alleged total inevitability of a French-speaking country being dead-on-arrival in northern North America.

I just have my historic analysis hat on. One of my ancestors was living in Quebec City back in the 1600's.

We could pick a different topic like "could Canada have resisted the US in the late 1800's without British or other imperial protection?". The answer to that one is 99%+ no. Not flattering to Canada but that's the only reasonable assessment.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

Some French speakers moved to British colonies. They were mostly Protestant or came over after the American Revolution. So I guess one could argue they may have been pushed away from Quebec by those factors.

French Protestants came in the 17th century, not the 18th, and only very few. As for the 18th century, I was referring to the pre-US Revolutionary War period of course.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

France had the means to do both, due to its size. It hosted one-quarter of Europe's population, its economy was twice the size of the British economy, and larger than the Holy Roman Empire. It could have been both the largest land power and largest maritime power (in fact, that's what it was between 1660 and 1700, when Colbert turned the French Navy into the largest European navy at the time, but that financial effort collapsed after 1700, and under Louis XV the French Navy was chronically underfunded).

The main problem was more the lack of a good taxation system (the wealthiest parts of French society did not pay taxes), a less developed financial system (which starved the royal government of funding, whereas the British government could run a huge public debt), and a lack of interest for overseas and maritime issues by the central government, which was led by "terriens", landed aristocracy living far from the coastlines and not really aware or interested in maritime issues.

This has always been the failure of French elites (with a few exceptions): the lack of interest in maritime issues. A fascinating atlas of the maritime history of France was published recently. I highly recommend it. It's quite enlightening, and reading it lots of things suddenly start to make sense.

Part of the big picture we're missing here is the differences between each government's response to post-Reformation religious strife in the colonial period. By simultaneously tolerating religious dissidents in the colonies while persecuting them at home, the English/British created incredibly strong push/pull factors that encouraged migration to its North American territories (particularly the migration of whole families rather than single men looking to make a buck). Conversely, the French largely restricted access to its colonies to members of the official religion. Had the French allowed for a Huguenot analog to the non-conformist colonies in New England or Catholic Maryland, there likely would have been much greater migration to its colonies and less to elsewhere in Europe.

That said, religious policy was by no means the only difference between the two countries, and other push/pull factors were at work as well (particularly with regard to Britain's southern colonies).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

We could pick a different topic like "could Canada have resisted the US in the late 1800's without British or other imperial protection?". The answer to that one is 99%+ no.

I wouldn't be so sure. After all, the ones who stopped the Americans in 1812 were the Canadiens (now called Québécois). Had the Canadiens sided with the Americans, probably there would be no independent Canada today (and also no French-speaking community left in North America, which is why they resisted the US invasion in the first place).