Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New France Colonisation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New France Colonisation

    What would Happened If The French Kings Like Louis XIV, Louis XV and
    Louis XVI had beleived in the colonization of New France? by french, like English did in the 13 colonies.

    [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Nouvelle-France_map-fr.svg/590px-Nouvelle-France_map-fr.svg.png
    vaincre sans pril, on triomphe sans gloire (triumph without peril brings no glory) P. Corneille

    Le probleme avec les cons, c'est qu'il ne se fatiguent jamais
    (The problem with Pr.cks, is that they never get tired ) Michel Audiard

  • #2
    you mean into what is now Canada? or also in other possessions of France in the New World and elsewhere. Perhaps Louis XIV instead of revoking the Edit of Nantes, might have pushed for Hugenots to emigrate...??

    Indeed France's kings could have pushed for more colonisation but with a weaker fleet than England's those would still be in jeopardy of France's eternal enemy: England.

    for sure more french-speaking people in the Belle Province, Nouvelle France, Pondicherry, and other outposts would mean a stronger position, stronger trade, more revenues. but also over time tension witht he hyper-centralized kingdom... if one thinks England was way too centralized for the colonists' taste. France was far more.

    so an independent Qubec in the late 1700's or a fe more states in the Union ? the USA founded by 14 or 15 states, some of which french speaking. the USA a bi-lingual nation?
    "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

    Comment


    • #3
      The previous map couldn't be displayed ont he screen; I am sending a new one



      In fact, France was in theory controlling more territories than the English
      and the Spanish, but with a very small population. I don't think it is a
      question of the french fleet. Spain and Portugal have sent a lot of immigrants to their colonies, despite they were under the constant threat of the French, Dutch and English Corsairs. You are talking of the Huguenots
      they were not allowed to go to New France, instead of that they were
      accepted in english colonies like South Carolina. I is why you have, for example a lot of confederate generals with french names (Maury, Villepuigue
      manigault, Blanchard, Gault ......)
      Last edited by PGT Beauregard; 05 Dec 08, 08:02.
      vaincre sans pril, on triomphe sans gloire (triumph without peril brings no glory) P. Corneille

      Le probleme avec les cons, c'est qu'il ne se fatiguent jamais
      (The problem with Pr.cks, is that they never get tired ) Michel Audiard

      Comment


      • #4
        Francophone America

        When the Anglo-Americans moved west of the Alleghenies, they ran into French speaking settlements. This included some corners of Kentucky, Missouri, and other states. The University of Utah library used to have a book in their collection providing a survey of French folk tales gathered in 1820-30s Missouri, and place names like Michaux creek (Kentucky), the Canadian river (starts in Colorado, runs through Oklahoma), Malade, Port Neuf, and Portage (Idaho) are just some of many examples of Franco-America's existence. (Not to overlook the fur trade itself) I think what held the French back was first, 17th and 18th century France was Europe's most advanced economy, and life was good there. Not much reason to emigrate. And second, the French monarchy's desire for tight control over everything mitigated against the more decentralized approach of the English. There was some intra-colonial migration, but not large scale. Thus the Protestant Melansons ended up Roman Catholic Acadiens. The English multi-colony approach to settlement of the Americas seems to have been more conducive to encouraging immigration. If the nature of the Massachusetts Bay Colony struck fear into your heart, there was always Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, or Rhode Island, not to mention isolated colonies of Dutchies and Swedes even then being absorbed in places like New York and Delaware. France appears to have been much better at taking in European immigrants in the Metropole, as long as they were Roman Catholic. A strange state of affairs, considering that the founder of the Bourbon dynasty was a Protestant King from Navarre.
        dit: Lirelou

        Phong trần mi một lưỡi gươm, Những loi gi o ti cơm s g!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by piero1971 View Post

          so an independent Qubec in the late 1700's or a fe more states in the Union ? the USA founded by 14 or 15 states, some of which french speaking. the USA a bi-lingual nation?
          A bilingual nation was intially the reality in the US. There was not any specific language the 'official' language at the Constutional convention or during Washingtons Presidency. Although German was so common it was suggested the Constitution & related documents from the constitutional convention be duplicated in German. They were published in German for distribution in Pennsylvania & other German speaking areas by private/comercial venture. If I understand the census records from the 19th Century German was not replaced by Spanish as the second prevalent language in the US until the early 20th Century.

          Post revolution expansion and emmigration from France resulted in many French speaking enclaves. Veevay county along the Ohio River in Indiana was settled by Swiss immigrants. Maine attracted French speaking immigrants to its fishing ports.

          Thru the 19th Century and into the 20th conducting business in languages other than English was fairly common. Amoung my family documents we found business letters and legal documents from the 1870s thru 1908 written in German or a mix of German and English. An accqauintance from Kanakakee Illinose recalled in the 1950s & early 1960s French instruction was socially mandated in his high school and it was very common to hear the adults converse or conduct business in French in the local businesses. My wife remembers that Dutch was used for church services into the early 1960s in her home town.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lirelou View Post
            ... France appears to have been much better at taking in European immigrants in the Metropole, as long as they were Roman Catholic. A strange state of affairs, considering that the founder of the Bourbon dynasty was a Protestant King from Navarre.
            Was he not the king who remarked that 'controlling Paris was worth attending Mass once' ?

            France had a policy of carefully screening it colonists for relgion and political reliability. Criminals were not always allowed into the colonies either. Combined with a lack of economic incentive this poduced a stable and loyal colonial population that was to small to effectively defend the territorial claims. Contrast this with the English methods of dumping any warm body ashore. Which resulted in a large and vigrous population that could take on anyone, including their nominal government.

            Comment


            • #7
              lirelou... can you tranlate the tagline?

              Phong tran mai mot l?oi guom, Nhung loai gia ao tui com sa gi!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by PGT Beauregard View Post

                Map says it all in 15 seconds:
                France controlled the two waterways leading deep into the North American continent: both the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Mississippi. These two waterways are almost in touch. My knowledge of American topography is a bit hazy, but I'm sure someone here can tell how far it is from Lake Erie to a navigable river that waters into the Mississippi.

                In the meanwhile the English and Dutch and Swedes and who else were busy in their 'corners' all hemmed in by the Alleghenies. Only the French through their waterways had access to all the vast expanses with its furs in the north, cotton in the south, its gold and ... and what not.
                'If only' ... France had shipped more people who could start to populate this new continent 'New France' over the Atlantic Ocean on a scale the English did.
                3 bottles of champagne, 3 wenches and 20 miles on horseback; all in 3 hours!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by von Panzerfaust View Post
                  Map says it all in 15 seconds:
                  France controlled the two waterways leading deep into the North American continent: both the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Mississippi. These two waterways are almost in touch. My knowledge of American topography is a bit hazy, but I'm sure someone here can tell how far it is from Lake Erie to a navigable river that waters into the Mississippi.
                  A days walk. The Ohio River tributarys reach within fifty kilometers of the South edges of the Great Lakes. Specifically the south end of lake Michigan, and the South West corner of Lake Erie. Short rivers reach from those two lakes southwards, draining from a rise in the bedrock that runs east/west across Northern Illinoise, Indiana, Ohio. It was & is possible to take large canoes up these streams, spend a ay or two packing them & your cargo thru the woods or present day city landscape, and float down the opposite side. Portage Avenue in the City of South Bend follows one of the popular trails used to cross over from the lakes to the Ohio/Mississippi Basin

                  Originally posted by von Panzerfaust View Post
                  In the meanwhile the English and Dutch and Swedes and who else were busy in their 'corners' all hemmed in by the Alleghenies. Only the French through their waterways had access to all the vast expanses with its furs in the north, cotton in the south, its gold and ... and what not.
                  'If only' ... France had shipped more people who could start to populate this new continent 'New France' over the Atlantic Ocean on a scale the English did.
                  The barrier of the Allegheny Mountains is exaggerated. English fur traders and pioneers were entering them regularly by the 1730s. Formal exploration was starting about the same time. George Washingtons first public job, at age 17, was to survey a section of the Virginian territorys in the mountains. He & another teenager spent a summer (probablly lost) trying to identify lattitude and longitude of the unmapped mountain peaks, valleys, and passes.

                  By the start of the Seven Years War fur collectors had regular routes in use into the Ohio and Tennesse River Basins. Traders were following them, and aggravating the French who started building forts on the upper reaches of the Ohio to police the unlicensed English traders. It took several tries during the Seven years War, but the English finally got small armys across the mountains. Basically they built roads thru the low mountain passes from one valley to the next. While a sizeable French population would have been competative with th English colonies they could not have depended on the mountain range any more than the Jura Mountains or the Ardennes uplands can be depended on as defense barriers. Alpine country this is not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks for your comments Panzerfaust, I just wanted to add that when France lost all her colonies after the seven years wars, Voltaire said something like "we are not going to regret this few Acres of Canada".
                    And After the American Revolution, Louis XVI refused to take back Canada
                    which proposed to him.
                    vaincre sans pril, on triomphe sans gloire (triumph without peril brings no glory) P. Corneille

                    Le probleme avec les cons, c'est qu'il ne se fatiguent jamais
                    (The problem with Pr.cks, is that they never get tired ) Michel Audiard

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by PGT Beauregard View Post
                      Thanks for your comments Panzerfaust, I just wanted to add that when France lost all her colonies after the seven years wars, Voltaire said something like "we are not going to regret this few Acres of Canada".
                      And After the American Revolution, Louis XVI refused to take back Canada
                      which proposed to him.
                      I wonder what the reasoning was? Too many English settlers arriving during the interm?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by von Panzerfaust View Post
                        Map says it all in 15 seconds:
                        France controlled the two waterways leading deep into the North American continent: both the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Mississippi. These two waterways are almost in touch. My knowledge of American topography is a bit hazy, but I'm sure someone here can tell how far it is from Lake Erie to a navigable river that waters into the Mississippi.

                        In the meanwhile the English and Dutch and Swedes and who else were busy in their 'corners' all hemmed in by the Alleghenies. Only the French through their waterways had access to all the vast expanses with its furs in the north, cotton in the south, its gold and ... and what not.
                        'If only' ... France had shipped more people who could start to populate this new continent 'New France' over the Atlantic Ocean on a scale the English did.
                        In the early 1800s the Ohio Erie canal was built. (started 1825) that linked Lake Erie to the Ohio river. A lot of people and goods were moved along the canals. Given the French had better relations with the indian tribes they may have been able to build such a canal well before then. By 1825 there were barely any indians left in Ohio to fight such a construction.

                        If the French were to have built a canal system similar to that in the mid 1700s they may have had a better chance of holding the area. Provided the indians didn't mind, but a canal would allow for more trade goods to enrich the tribes and have solidified relations even more.

                        Parts of the canal still exist today.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Psyhcoward View Post
                          In the early 1800s the Ohio Erie canal was built. (started 1825) that linked Lake Erie to the Ohio river. A lot of people and goods were moved along the canals. Given the French had better relations with the indian tribes they may have been able to build such a canal well before then. By 1825 there were barely any indians left in Ohio to fight such a construction.
                          Actually this cannal was in New York State, not Ohio. But it is ok. I used to think Duisenberg Automobiles were made in Germany

                          Originally posted by Psyhcoward View Post
                          If the French were to have built a canal system similar to that in the mid 1700s they may have had a better chance of holding the area. Provided the indians didn't mind, but a canal would allow for more trade goods to enrich the tribes and have solidified relations even more.
                          Laborers would have to emmigrate en mass. Constructing the Eire, and other, cannals required a constant stream of arriving laborers. Who had to be willing to do brutal work. After a season or two of cannal digging they had enough coins in their pocket to leave for better prospects in the frontier towns or pioneer farms. Fresh shiploads of Irish & other impovrished Europeans were required weekly to keep up the rapid construction of the cannals, and all the other structure of the industry emerging in North America.

                          To create the same level of construction of cannals or other structure needed to establish a strong agricultural economy and the early cities of the industrial era a immigration of several hundred thousand persons a year would be necessary. This population was available across Europe, how France might obtain it and govern it in New France is a interesting question.

                          Originally posted by Psyhcoward View Post
                          Parts of the canal still exist today.
                          Parts of another cannal, the Wabash & Erie Cannal, still exist a few hundred meters from where I sit. Unlike the Ohio & Erie Cannal this venture was never profitable. Two sets of investors lost everything in two bankruptcys, and the State government was caught holding guarantees for the second round of investment The steam railroad put a end to the cannal and by the time my German ancenstors arrived in the 1860s it was a stagnant ditch of rotting boats and garbage.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Put it down to Ohio bias



                            I think the large numbers of workers needed to build such a canal in the 1700's would have soured French and Indian relations a bit too. One reason the French got on so well with the Indians was that they were not seen to be as much of a threat to the natives as the English were turning out to be. The French didn't have near the number of settlers as the English.

                            I think they may have been in a catch 22. If they increase the number of imigrants to have the labor force needed to build a canal system to link the Great Lakes and the Gulf, they risk doing what the English did which is take over more native lands and turn the Indians against them.
                            The French trade with the Indians would have increased probably, but unless they were able to offer better deals than the English (which they were unable to do historicaly) the Indians would have turned against them as another invader.
                            If they don't bring enough people to build the canals or create enough settlements then you wind up having a repeat of history.

                            I wonder what the outcome of things would have been considering a certain short fellow was coming into the picture later on down the road.
                            If France had been able to keep it's holdings would they have lost them anyway after the Napolean wars?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              actually when I first read the title I thought it was about what if:

                              - france restarts colonisation (unlikely)

                              or

                              - france beeing colonized by africans and arabs (ongoing)

                              lol...
                              "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X