History Hub

Brian,

that is an interesting "what if". I made some years ago a thread here on the boards sparked by an American, who had a French-Canadian mother and an American father: Why North-America wasn't French. Had some 15 pages about it. I revived it on the French: "Histoforums" with more research and had a lot of respons.

As a Belgian, I am not that good in Canadian history, but if I remember it well Montcalm give it at least without nearly any fighting? Will have to take my papers back after my week holidays. See you in a week.

It were French websites. And that thread: Pourquoi l'Amérique du Nord n'est pas français? (Why is North-America not French?) on the French forums was sparked by the reading of "Louisiana" by Michel Peyramaure.

Warm regards,

Paul.

if I remember it well Montcalm give it at least without nearly any fighting?

Quoted from this message

Montcalm put up a very strong fight, and died from wounds sustained in the battle. Under his leadership the French military was more effective than their numbers would have suggested.

Brian

re: Message #3:

GF - you think the United States would be the "Etats Unis" then - or EU for short? Would that mean they would have had to lose all their wars, or just surrender a lot?

Seriously, I would expect that the US War of Independence might not have occurred, and that independence would have come slowly by evolution, rather than quickly by revolution.

It might have kept the British Empire in a dominant position earlier and for a longer period of time.

But since the British Empire was so evil, according to Buckskins, that might have been a bad thing.

So Wolfe's victory was a good thing, or a bad thing? I wonder.

Paul,

In looking at this question, ask whether the timing of a French defeat would have made any difference. The British likely would prevail, but maybe later rather than sooner.

If the French had stayed fighting in North America until 1800, would the Fathers of the American Revolution pushed for reform rather than independence from Britain?

If there had not been an American Revolution in 1776, would there have been a French Revolution in 1789?

What do you think?

Brian

White Camry,

I don't think it is quite as clear-cut as you suggest.

The French navy was still a force to be reckoned with. After the capture of Quebec in 1759, the French held out in Montreal until the spring of 1760. Naval forces would leave the St. Lawrence in the winter and return in the spring (something about ice). The French had reason to believe that the French fleet would arrive, and only surrendered when the British arrived first.

The colony of Quebec was self-sustaining. Montcalm would have benefitted from reinforcements, but he had been doing a good job against the British and colonial forces. Had Wolfe lost on the Plains of Abraham the fleet would have pulled out for the winter shortly. In fact it was the lateness of the season that pushed Wolfe to a desparate gamble - otherwise the admiral was going to pull the plug on his campaign.

I was questioning whether the British and colonial forces had the will to continue sending invading armies into Canada had they been repulsed with heavy losses both in 1758 and 1759.

We know the colonial move to independence was driven by taxation in the post-war period. Had there been a continuing war those taxes would have been less aggravating when they were paying for an army fighting for colonial security.

I am suggesting that the revolutionary leaders might have accepted a form of responsible governmental reform rather than total revolution had there been an enemy force in place in Canada and the Mississippi valley.

At issue is the philosophical issue - do the individuals change history, or are they pawns in an overriding tide of change?

White Camry,

While I agree that the French would eventually be overwhelmed by superior British numbers, I am not convinced that Montcalm was doomed in 1759. He had thrown back an invading army in 1758, and he could have thrown Wolfe back in 1759 had he acted differently on the Plains of Abraham.

British naval superiority was not absolute, and Quebec was not dependent on relief convoys. The British position at Louisbourg was not fatal to Quebec.

Granted that American migration westward would lead to ongoing conflict with the French and their native allies. The wars in the west at the time, and up to the war of 1812 demonstrated an advantage to defenders, and difficulty in leading armies through wilderness territories.

My suggestion is that had the French held their North American territories from 1760 to 1800, the people that led the American Revolution might have pressed for reform rather than independence. That does beg the question whether the British crown would have been amenable to reforms at the time.

Paul,

Wolfe & Montcalm both died in the same battle - Wolfe died quickly, Montcalm took about a day to die.

The battle was large for North America at the time. Each army was about 5,000 - small by European standards, but large in the colonies at the time.

Quebec's governor surrendered to the British several days after Montcalm died. He was feeling that continuing to fight would be a lost cause once the British had surrounded the city.

Scarboro,

>>> My suggestion is that had the French held their North American territories from 1760 to 1800, the people that led the American Revolution might have pressed for reform rather than independence. That does beg the question whether the British crown would have been amenable to reforms at the time. <<<

Your agenda becomes clear: you simply wish the Americans hadn't quit the British Empire the way they ultimately did. Sadly, that would have required:

1) a certain foresight and forebearance on Whitehall's part which they never had once Pitt the Elder went off the deep end, and

2) the Americans not to be Americans.

But let's indulge your fancy a little. What reforms would or could the Americans have demanded if Wolfe lost at Quebec and the French reclaimed their empire in North America?

Paul,

My French is not that great, but the way I read the documents you referred to is that the author is saying "We should not have lost the war" - similar to the way the Germans reacted after WW1.

I think the author is trying to diminish the magnitude of the French loss / British victory by blaming a few defeatists. This is a little like what happens when a country loses the World Cup.

There is some truth. The battle of the Plains of Abraham was short in duration. A large part of the French army was intact. With a different leader they could have continued the defense of Quebec. But they didn't do that.

Part of the French problem was divided command. In the field Montcalm was unquestioned, but in defending Quebec the Governor chose to overrule him. On the day in question, Montcalm rode out to assess Wolfe's attack, concluded he was facing Wolfe's full army, and sent orders to bring up the bulk of his regular troops. The Governor countermanded this, and kept the regulars to meet the diversionary attack by a naval landing party.

Montcalm had a reputation for military genius based on his victories in the field. His troops had faith because of his leadership. Losing him was a severe blow to morale.

Having been under seige for months, seeing the British closing in on the city, and losing the brilliant general put the French leaders into disarray.

I believe it is true that this battle could have gone either way, and the actions of the leaders made all the difference.

Brian

White Camry,

Two points - they weren't Americans before the Revolution. They were Virginians, Marylanders, etc., and they had not yet chased the more moderate citizens north yet.

Second - a "defeated" Britain would not have stayed that way forever. They would have continued to press the French, in conjunction with the colonial forces.