Talk:1755 War

New France

Any thought on New France. Only its important for my articles on Tenisi and Kentucky. --Sikulu 03:52, 2 February 2006 (PST)

I think it's imperative we also get Marc Pasquin's input here. Here's my comments thus far:

As Interested Party for the NAL, I'll pay attention too and comment where it seems needed.

Duly noted, and thanks for the 2-bits.

New France was completely subjugated by the British in 1760, and transferred over by treaty at the Treaty of Paris in 1763. Obviously, there must've been some sort of change from *here* to *there* as New Francy remained independent, as did Louisianne.

Louisianne is primarily saved because there was no one in the NAL willing to buy it from France. I doubt the question ever came up seriously. And even after the NAL had sacked its area of greatest utility (N.O.), it ended up giving it all back. The Intendency of New France itself has only to be explained. Seeing as it consists of some pretty major settlements (Quebec et al) along the river, perhaps the British decided that, since they'd taken care of France's ports on the Atlantic and all the territories west and south of Quebec and were already busy to the north, they could (for some inexplicable reason) seek a peaceful resolution. Perhaps France capitulated and offered a tidy sum for the British not to invade further. Undoubtedly would involve New France being disarmed and injoined from ever seeking to stage further incursions into British territories on pain of at last being sacked entirely. That at least would explain why the modern Intendency has no proper armed forces, etc. Later treaties between Britain and NF would give New France its current shape and explain how it came to have access to Hudson's Bay, seeing as the northern parts of the Intendancy were wholly controlled by the Company before. I suspect the HBC got a tidy sum, plus rights of free passage through NF and use of NF ports in exchange.

Remember that we're talking about 1763; the 1828 War was a different casus belli.

I know! I'm just trying to put out possibilities for the difficulties between New France and Louisiana. The problem may or may not stem from 1763. If it does, then consider me dressed down!

I agree with the rest of what you say, and I can see that being incorporated to an article of the French and Indian War. That is, if Marc assents to it.

Well, there's no reason why an article on the 1755 War can't be made.

As for LA, was it that there was no-one willing to buy, or that it was never offered for sale because it was much more viable as a colony than *here* because of de Bienville's recruiting of habitants?

It was never an issue for the NAL, the only líkely buyer. Tom Jefferson was never in power, and even if he would have liked to see LA become part of the NAL, it's clear that the NAL was not interested. Whether LA was actually offered for sale, or whether such a sale would have been acceded to by France if the NAL had offered to buy is moot and probably unrecoverable.

It might make for an interesting in-IB what-if...

Remember that LA was much more densely populated.

By the 1820s, yes I agree. In 1800 or so, when it might have been possible that LA was for sale or that the NAL might have been interested in buying, I don't think the interior would have been any more settled than *here*. And anyway, the greater settlement didn't stop the NAL from sacking the lower quarter of the country anyway! ;)

Note this from the history section; I agree about the interior (vis: Osage, New Cornwall, New Navarra) but here's the rest: Forays to France to recruit new colonists continued with growing success as time passed and Louis XV's and XVI's reigns wore on. By 1770 the colony of Louisianne had grown and the chain of trading posts along the Mississippi had blossomed into a string of towns, and total population had burgeoned through both natural reproduction and immigration to almost 200,000 persons with 50,000 full time soldiers to bolster the local militias that had been developped to protect against Indian Forays. The 70,000 African slaves were kept largely in the south, where the population of whites was heaviest to prevent a joint uprising of Les Petites-Nations and Slaves. No-one disputed this at the time, so I took it as more or less canon.

I would imagine that part of the reversion of SO was because there was so much staunchly Louisiannan population there. (That was and is the center of population for Louisianne, although the demographics are moving northward over time.)

Could be. From the American perspective, it was more like profuse apologies from France, remuneration, etc. The war was never engaged in by the NAL as a means of aggrandising its territory. The war was a matter of French aggression (I guess they wanted the Northwest Territories (what are now Ouisconsin, Les Plaines, Illinoise et al) back) and the NAL wasn't going to stand by and lose 2/3 of its territory!

That said, there must've also been some sort of schism between New Francy and Louisianne. I think that we can ascribe part of the change to the fact of the de Bienville Princes. Maybe that allowed for some of the differences and the fact that only the claims of New France east of the Mississippi were lost.

Maybe there was some royal edict around the time of de Bienville's elevation that essentially separated New Francy and Louisianne, dictating the dividing line? I suppose this edict could also have come in the 1760's when the land was ceded to the NAL and the FK.

To the British crowns, rather. There was neither an FK nor an NAL in the 1760s.

Duly noted, but we could say "what would later become the FK & NAL", if we wanted to be cantankerous.

Sure!

Could there have been a minor war between the FK and France that was further supported by New-Francy? Perhaps Louisianne, not eager to enter into a war with the NAL (at the time) would have refused aid to New-Francy, thus promoting the schism that exists to this day?

Could it be that New France rendered aid to the NAL during the 1828 War, and Louisianne never forgot that little kindness?

If the war is between France and Britain and New France is aiding (old) France, then it would have to be explained how they got away with it.

I suppose that could be a second blow in the spat between LA and NF; I was thinking that LA would start the row and then it would be the typical feud.

What happened here more or less centers around the French and Indian War. You may have to hold off on expanding your proposals for the histories of Tenisi and Kentucky until Marc and I sort out the issue. Your input is very welcome, mind, as your areas of interest coincide with the events that Marc and I must sort out. BoArthur 08:16, 2 February 2006 (PST)

We all await with interest! Elemtilas 10:02, 2 February 2006 (PST)

Here's a thought. How about an unsuccessful attack on Quebec. No one thought that it would work *here* (even though they did pull it off in the end). --Sikulu 03:15, 3 February 2006 (PST)

Seven Years War

There's something tickling in the back of my brain that's telling me there was no Seven Year War *there*...am I right/wrong? (Not discounting this theatre of the war, of course). BoArthur 18:27, 2 February 2006 (PST)

You're right, it was discussed before on the list and there were no seven years war. What people in the US refer to the as the "French and Indian War" was realy just a series of skirmishes spreaded over a long period of time regarding mainly the fur trade. That part would have certainly existed but would been more complex considering the number of colonial power involved. --Marc Pasquin 07:24, 3 February 2006 (PST)

the article

This article seem to try and give new explanations for things that had already been explained before: NF and LA don't like one another because the first chose the monarchist side and the second the republican side during the french revolution.

At the same time, that reasoning seems a little simplistic to describe the feud that exists between them. Could both sets of reasons be a possibility? Or that the Monarchist/Republican split was the final nail in the coffin of Good Feelings?

Troops stationed in Lousianna (and NF) at the time would have been french (as in "part of the overall french army") so the prince would have had no input in sending troops or not. I even wonder why he would have refused to do so. It must be remembered that both were fully part of the french kingdom.

I think that I wrote that with what Padraic said above, thinking that it was not so much a French maneuver as a New-French maneuver, and that it was more of a localised skirmish, and possibly the royals didn't accept it at first? Thus things went badly, the Neofranciens appealed for help to de Bienville, who refused, but later accepted as the war wore on?

NF is not completely disarmed and its lack of a standing army has nothing to do with external pressure (see this article) and would not have been accepted by the crown anyway (some forces would have been needed to defend the colony against the natives).

Could this idea be possible, and that later treaty agreements allowed for defence against the natives?

The access to the Hudson bay by NF I had proposed to have been part of land settlement between NF and NAL after this one's creation.

After the creation of the NAL? Could be; could be explained away as one of the later treaties from the article.

LA had been said to have been more populous (and more densely so) *there* then *here* which is why it couldn't be sold off.

Thank you! Glad someone agrees with me.

Another problem I have is with always treating the british crowns as a bloc, at the time they would not even be federated so the simple reason for the lesser level of conquest in regard to french territory might be due to having the 3 crowns having their own agenda: *here* the dutch and english fought skirmishes even though they were often allies. To take a second example, think of the spanish and french, both ruled by bourbons but still fighting one another. --Marc Pasquin 07:24, 3 February 2006 (PST)

However, they múst have been working very closely together even three or four decades before the XIX century. They didn't just wake up on the morning of 1 January 1805 and say, blimey, I think we should unify our three countries in a grand confederation! I'd be willing to bet that the machine had been in the works for a very long time. Maybe centuries of closer cooperation than was evinced *here* led to this union. UNlike the United Kingdom, which is entirely founded on the agressions of England on the three other countries that form the isle; the Federated Kingdom was a comming together in collegiality of three different countries. Elemtilas 20:22, 3 February 2006 (PST)

Well as far as the Brits go, we're talking about two crowns (the same person being monarch of both England and Scotland) but, including Kemr, three Parliaments. Nitpicky, I know. And let us not forget that the Scandinavians as well. I'm wondering if maybe this is the war the set in stone treaties that gave places like Cherokee and the Six Nations their status as equals? Because that is a process that is not at all obvious to me, not at all. Zahir 07:31, 3 February 2006 (PST)

Sorry, It's just that I'm a beknighted Yankee who has no idea the process of royals. :) I do like your explanation, Marc, and think it should be pulled into the article. BoArthur 17:09, 3 February 2006 (PST)

The Scandinavians were really not so great a part of the earlier action, mind. Regarding how it came to be that Newcomer and Native were seen as equals, well, that's one of those Great Secrets of the history. Elemtilas 20:22, 3 February 2006 (PST)

WIP Tag

I think what we have here is QSS-able, however, I know that there's information to flesh out here, as well. Marc? Others? BoArthur 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Above (and 2 years ago) I pointed out my objection to the article which as so far not been modified.--Marc Pasquin 21:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I essentially wrote down what I'd found elsewhere about this conflict. I will take it upon myself now to rework this article into some kind of shape that is more acceptable given QSS and the notes above. Zahir 00:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Marc; I read through it, but let's recap what the objections to the article is/are:

1. This article seem to try and give new explanations for things that had already been explained before: NF and LA don't like one another because the first chose the monarchist side and the second the republican side during the french revolution.
2. Troops stationed in Lousianna (and NF) at the time would have been french (as in "part of the overall french army") so the prince would have had no input in sending troops or not. I even wonder why he would have refused to do so. It must be remembered that both were fully part of the french kingdom.
3. NF is not completely disarmed and its lack of a standing army has nothing to do with external pressure (see this article) and would not have been accepted by the crown anyway (some forces would have been needed to defend the colony against the natives).
4. The access to the Hudson bay by NF I had proposed to have been part of land settlement between NF and NAL after this one's creation.
5. LA had been said to have been more populous (and more densely so) *there* then *here* which is why it couldn't be sold off.
6. Another problem I have is with always treating the british crowns as a bloc, at the time they would not even be federated so the simple reason for the lesser level of conquest in regard to french territory might be due to having the 3 crowns having their own agenda: *here* the dutch and english fought skirmishes even though they were often allies. To take a second example, think of the spanish and french, both ruled by bourbons but still fighting one another.

I had made comments between your points above; I don't know if you just hadn't had time to respond, but what do you think of my take on things?

1. I felt that it was simplistic to say that it was a purely ideological split between LA and NF; that it might be also based on feelings of economic bias toward Louisianne, and the focus of this war in NF with little Louisiannan help. Could both sets of reasons be a possibility? Or that the Monarchist/Republican split was the final nail in the coffin of Good Feelings?
2. Padraic had commented, and I somewhat agreed with the idea that this be not so much a French maneuver as a New-French maneuver, and that it was more of a localised skirmish, and possibly the royals didn't accept it/know about it at first? Thus things went badly, the Neofranciens appealed for help to de Bienville, who refused, but later accepted as the war wore on?
3. Could later treaty agreements allowed for defence against the natives?
4. Could the access to Hudson's Bay be after the creation of the NAL? Could it be explained away as one of the later treaties from the article?
5. Thank you! Glad someone agrees with me.
6. As for this remark, there were comments made above, but no further commentary from you on the matter.

I look forward to your thoughts as we restart the dialogue. BoArthur 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1- the split is not overtly simplistic in my opinion, chosing oposite side in what amount to a civil war is pretty drastic.

2- as I explained before, It wouldn't have been de Bienville's choice to intervene or not: The colonial troops were under the order of the Ministry of Navy and the other troops (militia and regulars) woul have been under the order of the Lieutenant General for New France.

3- France would never have accepted a treaty that leaves the province defenceless

4- thats exactly what I said, Its part of the treaty that saw NF release its claim on the highlands

5- glad to do so

6- treating the 3 future federated kingdom as a single entity seem odd to me considering Scotland would have had nothing to gain from the adventure.

--Marc Pasquin 14:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Acadians

• Here* the Acadians were rudely expelled from their lands when the English began to suspect them of spying for the French. *There*, how did that play out? Were the Acadians unceremoniously kicked out of their rightful homes, or did a rather more Catholic Anglo-Scotland take pity/mercy on them? Juan Martin Velez Linares 15:31, 26/2/2016 (CST)

Pretty much the same as *here*. Acadians in IB are actually descendants of Huguenots who fled the war of religions in France and established an unrecognized colony called Acadia. When Scottish settlers claimed the land in the name of Scotland, the french authorities in New Francy refused to intervene both due to the fact that the colony was not chartered and that New Francy, by law, only allowed catholic settlers.After some negotiations, the french authorities in Louisianna accepted to receive them due to that colony not have the same edict against protestant settlers.---Marc pasquin 23:46, 28 February 2016 (PST)