What if France had chartered the Hudson Bay Company?

[Asharella]

Hi. I'm brand new here. This is something I'd been thinking about already, in fact it was doing research on it that resulted in me discovering AH.

In 1661 Médard des Groseilliers and Pierre-Esprit Radisson returned to Quebec after a very successful journey to Lake Superior, the first by Europeans. They came back with a large quantity of high quality furs and news that the Cree who lived west and north of Lake Superior said that area was the best fur country and its rivers drained into a large salt sea to the north. Instead of receiving them with honor and as the saviors of the Quebec colony, which they were, the Governor of the colony arrested des Groseilliers and confiscated their furs.

After he was released des Groseilliers returned to France to plead to the crown for redress and for the crown to create a company that would trade furs via the Hudson Bay, which the French called the North Bay. In OTL the French crown turned him down because the main minister, Colbert, was antagonistic to building Canada on fur but wanted instead to settle the land with farmers. Eventually Radisson and des Groseilliers turned to the English and Charles II chartered the Hudson Bay Company. In OTL the far north became Rupert's Land and quite British. The British went on to challenge the French in North America and finally by 1763 had taken all of New France away from France.

So...

What if Colbert had been convinced by des Groseilliers? What if there had not been a Hudson Bay Company chartered by the English in 1670 but a North Bay Company chartered by the French in 1661?

Could this POD have been enough to result in the French not losing any territory in North America to the British?

Any thoughts?

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Hi. I'm brand new here. This is something I'd been thinking about already, in fact it was doing research on it that resulted in me discovering AH.

In 1661 Médard des Groseilliers and Pierre-Esprit Radisson returned to Quebec after a very successful journey to Lake Superior, the first by Europeans. They came back with a large quantity of high quality furs and news that the Cree who lived west and north of Lake Superior said that area was the best fur country and its rivers drained into a large salt sea to the north. Instead of receiving them with honor and as the saviors of the Quebec colony, which they were, the Governor of the colony arrested des Groseilliers and confiscated their furs.

After he was released des Groseilliers returned to France to plead to the crown for redress and for the crown to create a company that would trade furs via the Hudson Bay, which the French called the North Bay. In OTL the French crown turned him down because the main minister, Colbert, was antagonistic to building Canada on fur but wanted instead to settle the land with farmers. Eventually Radisson and des Groseilliers turned to the English and Charles II chartered the Hudson Bay Company. In OTL the far north became Rupert's Land and quite British. The British went on to challenge the French in North America and finally by 1763 had taken all of New France away from France.

So...

What if Colbert had been convinced by des Groseilliers? What if there had not been a Hudson Bay Company chartered by the English in 1670 but a North Bay Company chartered by the French in 1661?

Could this POD have been enough to result in the French not losing any territory in North America to the British?

Any thoughts?

It would have been a good move had it occurred for the French.. moving the Fur trade to the North though would have deprived some of the Indian allies west of Montreal, but thats no diversion from OTL except that it would be the French not the British depriving them.

But the colony could then focus on becoming a settler colony. that probably means changing the relationship with the Indians west of Montreal...and probably another War with the Iroquois.

Of course though, where are the settlers coming from. France was prosperous all by itself. I suppose you could recruit from the poor of the Urban areas such as Paris, but I'm not sure that would amount to alot, as the country was, like most others mostly rural. Penal colonies (Indentured) in limited settlements perhaps... around Ft. Frontenac, Niagara and Detroit

 

[8Deer]

Whoa, I was just about to post a thread on this subject!!

Therefore, I don't have any answers to your questions

 

[Asharella]

Interesting enough, another thread on New France started today and has lots of responses. I guess the veterans get more traffic?

My interest in this is the same as the other thread, a TL where New France continues. The other thread has concluded the POD could be in the French & Indian War (7 Years War). I think that is implausible as the momentum was already with the British by mid-Century. I had concluded that the stream of British victories over France started with the Hudson Bay Company decision. That's the reason I imagined a POD of the French chartering a North Bay Company.

I am interested in exploring the outcome of this POD WITHOUT tweaking it to lead to wanking New France. Some of the stuff I have read on here seems to me to not be really developing from the POD but actually being imported in from what the "imaginer" thinks is needed to achieve the desired result. I don't want that. I'd rather explore possible PODs until we find one that reasonably results in the outcome.

I do think that France chartering des Groseilliers' idea is necessary for the outcome, but I don't know if it is sufficient. Therefore I'm wondering if the POD actually needs to be something earlier that results in different attitudes in France in the 17th Century about colonization.

I've considered a POD in the life of Henry IV might be sufficient to result in all this. The two PODs there I've thought about are 1) WI Henry hadn't converted to Catholicism. Could he still have won the war? Could he have created a France with a French Church similar to the Anglican one? Would this result in a more robust attitude among the people about colonization? 2) WI Catholic Henry hadn't been assassinated but instead had a long reign? Could he have created a more tolerant France where the Huguenots were more included and thus not excluded from colonization of New France and could have been the driving force of early settlement parallel to the English colonies in the 1600s?

 

[rcduggan]

2) WI Catholic Henry hadn't been assassinated but instead had a long reign? Could he have created a more tolerant France where the Huguenots were more included and thus not excluded from colonization of New France and could have been the driving force of early settlement parallel to the English colonies in the 1600s?

For what it's worth, I have considered the possibility of a TL with this as its POD. I think the ramifications in New France would be considerable: potentially no restrictions to Catholics only is among them. But my planning for this TL got bogged down in researching the Thirty Years' War, so unfortunately I don't have much to say beyond affirming that this is a promising idea.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Interesting enough, another thread on New France started today and has lots of responses. I guess the veterans get more traffic?

My interest in this is the same as the other thread, a TL where New France continues. The other thread has concluded the POD could be in the French & Indian War (7 Years War). I think that is implausible as the momentum was already with the British by mid-Century. I had concluded that the stream of British victories over France started with the Hudson Bay Company decision. That's the reason I imagined a POD of the French chartering a North Bay Company.

I am interested in exploring the outcome of this POD WITHOUT tweaking it to lead to wanking New France. Some of the stuff I have read on here seems to me to not be really developing from the POD but actually being imported in from what the "imaginer" thinks is needed to achieve the desired result. I don't want that. I'd rather explore possible PODs until we find one that reasonably results in the outcome.

I do think that France chartering des Groseilliers' idea is necessary for the outcome, but I don't know if it is sufficient. Therefore I'm wondering if the POD actually needs to be something earlier that results in different attitudes in France in the 17th Century about colonization.

I've considered a POD in the life of Henry IV might be sufficient to result in all this. The two PODs there I've thought about are 1) WI Henry hadn't converted to Catholicism. Could he still have won the war? Could he have created a France with a French Church similar to the Anglican one? Would this result in a more robust attitude among the people about colonization? 2) WI Catholic Henry hadn't been assassinated but instead had a long reign? Could he have created a more tolerant France where the Huguenots were more included and thus not excluded from colonization of New France and could have been the driving force of early settlement parallel to the English colonies in the 1600s?

Henry IV surviving the Assassination is probably best, as I think its probable that he had to convert to become King. or risk unrest among the majority Catholic population, and even more plots to unseat him.

that brings up intriguing possibilities in itself when the Winter king makes his pitch

also, having New France's administration taken over directly by the Crown earlier probably helps as well As its only then that efforts to increase New France's population had any effect. but that can't really occur until Henry IV is firmly on the throne and the Edict of Nantes and toleration for protestants are in effect. You know I always thought Acadia would have been a good place for a Hugenot colony to flourish in this time period.

 

[Asharella]

2) WI Catholic Henry hadn't been assassinated but instead had a long reign? Could he have created a more tolerant France where the Huguenots were more included and thus not excluded from colonization of New France and could have been the driving force of early settlement parallel to the English colonies in the 1600s?

For what it's worth, I have considered the possibility of a TL with this as its POD. I think the ramifications in New France would be considerable: potentially no restrictions to Catholics only is among them. But my planning for this TL got bogged down in researching the Thirty Years' War, so unfortunately I don't have much to say beyond affirming that this is a promising idea.

It'd be fun to get just your thoughts even though your planning has gotten bogged down.

 

[Asharella]

You know I always thought Acadia would have been a good place for a Hugenot colony to flourish in this time period.

I think it is very plausible that in this TL France would be comfortable with a Hugenot colony just as England was comfortable with Puritan and Catholic colonies.

I also was thinking that if Quebec was open to Hugenots there would have been a lot more support in France from the Catholic Church for Catholics to emigrate so the colonies wouldn't be dominated by Hugenots. This could lead to competition among the two religious groups to see which could emigrate more, with the result that New France grows as fast as the English colonies.

 

[Asharella]

I want to have some of this discussion go back to the POD being the French Crown chartering a North Bay Company to see where it goes.

So in this TL late 17th Century Quebec is still very small in numbers compared to the English colonies. In OTL a British Hudson Bay Company is credited by Historians with two results. 1) France finally took seriously settling people in Quebec. 2) Quebec looked for an alternate to the north country fur trade and instead went south. La Salle explored the Great Lakes more, found the Ohio River, found the upper Mississippi River, journeyed down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, claimed the Mississippi Basin for France as Louisiana, and led a colonization party that arrived in Louisiana from the Gulf of Mexico. Quebec made a truce with the Iroquois Confederacy so they were safer in this southern focus.

In our TL with a French North Bay Company (NBC), would settlement in the late 17th and early 18th Centuries in New France be less, more or about the same?

In our TL would Quebec still look for an alternative to the NBC dominating the north country fur trade and focus on the south? Would La Salle still explore and claim the Great Lakes and Louisiana?

 

[Fearless Leader]

I doubt that a French HBC would result in any serious increase in French Canada's population. If anything it will be less due to less of an incentive to bring people in. France always had trouble luring people to it's colonies and suffered low population growth once they did get there (unlike the British colonies who began experiencing a veritable population boom by the 18th century). I don't see these population dynamics changing with a French Hudson Bay.

Profits however, will be up for the French, leading to perhaps less of an investment in colonists and more in traders (less population for New France!) There's also not going to be any incentive to explore the Great Lakes/Mississippi region so the Mississippi basin remains a nebulous region on European maps for a bit longer. Then again, Perhaps La Salle does explore it a bit in the hopes of finding a route to China. Yet these explorations won't get far without a desire for the fur trade, especially once it becomes clear that no clear route is available.

If anything, La Salle might try to find a passage to China in the Arctic given France's more northern focus in TTL. Leading to a large island bearing his name and a bunch of frozen frenchmen somewhere in the arctic.

Without the HBC, England's going to be a bit weaker, but not by much. An additional need for capital might cause expeditions to be funded probing further inland, discovering the Mississippi perhaps leading the English to found a colony at it's base? That could be quite interesting...

 

[Umbric Man]

Without the HBC, England's going to be a bit weaker, but not by much. An additional need for capital might cause expeditions to be funded probing further inland, discovering the Mississippi perhaps leading the English to found a colony at it's base? That could be quite interesting...

Hail Carolana!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolana

 

[Fearless Leader]

Perhaps with the French taking Hudson's bay, the British are more inclined to look elsewhere? With New York in English hands, it wouldn't take much for an expedition to head up the Hudson to the Mohawk River, then over the Oneida Carry to Lake Oneida, and there to the Great Lakes and potentially the Ohio and Mississippi!

We might also see different trade patterns emerging, namely the French adopting the OTL English system of "Trading posts" while the British adopt the more integrated French system of locals leading to a large English speaking Metis population in TTL. All of this due to the different geographical locations of their trading areas!

 

[Alex Richards]

There were actually plans in the 1700s for a 14th British colony in Ohio called 'Vivandia' or something similar. Perhaps it's established ITTL

 

[Asharella]

So it seems we have this consensus:

With a successful North Bay Company (NBC) the French do not seek out the southern route to the Great Lakes nor explore and claim the Mississippi & Ohio valleys. However, there is more French exploration to the North and along the North Bay rivers that leads to French domination of OTL western Canada by early 18th Century.

Instead it is Pieter Schuler of New York who initially explores the southern route to the Great Lake by going up the Mohawk River, then down to Lake Ontario and then into the Mississippi & Ohio valleys. The entire Mississippi Basin is claimed for England in 1690 when Schuyler finally reaches the mouth of the Mississippi. Schuyler names the territory "New Kent." He returns to the area from the sea in 1694 to start an English colony. A city is started near the mouth of the Mississippi called "New London."

With the Ohio Valley territory clearly under English control and no barriers to settlement, the push of colonials to go west of the mountains and settle the there starts before the turn of the 18th Century.

This exploration and settlement is done in harmony with the Tribes, especially the Iroquois Confederacy, resulting in a mixed population along the Ohio. They won't be called Métis or Mestizo, for they are the terms in French and Spanish. The English term is Mestee. By 1700 a colony named Vivandia is chartered by the Crown to stop the dispute between New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia over their competing claims.

The 18th Century Colonial Wars between Britain and France in OTL still occur, but these are all smaller skirmishes in North America with little territorial changes. The French & Indian War of OTL is called King George's War in North America, is not the major conflict it was in OTL since the English already have the Ohio territory. The final result is a stalemate. Canada remains French.

Will the 15 English colonies still revolt?

 

[Vitruvius]

There were actually plans in the 1700s for a 14th British colony in Ohio called 'Vivandia' or something similar. Perhaps it's established ITTL

I'm assuming that you are referring to Vandalia which was named after or rather in honor of Queen Charlotte.

By 1700 a colony named Vivandia is chartered by the Crown to stop the dispute between New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia over their competing claims.

So that name really wouldn't be used for anything so early in the 1700's since she didn't become Queen until 1761. I would question the ability of the English to get access to the Ohio via Lake Ontario. Going up the Mohawk to Ontario, via the Oneida or Oswego River I think, would be possible assuming they can come to terms with the Iroquois but then they would be brushing up against the French territories. The problem is that unless you go through Lake Ontario then portage around the Niagara falls to Lake Erie the only way to the Great Lakes/Ohio Valley is overland across Western NY, that is to say straight through the heartland of the Iroquois.

I suppose if the British colonists somehow merged with the Iroquois as you're proposing it could happen. In fact British infiltration of Western NY would probably inevitable. Most of that territory is extremely fertile agricultural land, perhaps not quite as good as but closer than Ohio. And of course you have to pass through it to get from NY to Ohio. So I suppose it could work and with the border being resolved during the Franco-British colonial wars. Either way I think its a very interesting idea with some serious potential.

 

[Asharella]

Okay. I was going on Alex Richards' input, which was vague. With your clarification, Vitruvius, it is obvious the colony wouldn't be called Vivandia in this TL. The obvious name would be Ohio.

The British do go through Lake Ontario, portaging Niagra, and then into Lake Erie to reach the Ohio Country in the TL. This is not a problem because the French don't control this region. The French continue to focus on the Ottawa/French River route to Lake Huron and on their North Bay Company.

Yes, this is a joint venture of the British, actually New Yorkers, and the Iroquois Confederacy. Ohio will mainly be a Mestee colony. As Europeans move into Upstate New York, the Iroquois retreat into Ohio and intermarry with the New Yorkers who go there with them.

I don't see New Kent developing much more in the 18th Century than Louisiana in OTL, except it is English not French.

I named the TL city near OTL New Orleans as New London. What will the British name the TL city near OTL St. Louis?

 

[Fearless Leader]

I'm not so sure you can just assume that the Colonial Wars of the 17th-18th centuries would be the same in this scenario. Keep in mind that with a successful NBC the population of New France is probably going to be lower than OTL. Also keep in mind that with the opening of the Ohio etc. the population of the American colonies is going to be substantially higher than OTL (though lower in density).

These population dynamics coupled with the persistence of a French colony in North America, and the fear of French/Catholic domination, would probably lead to an English conquest of New France in TTL earlier than in OTL. In the peace treaties I could see France ceding Quebec to the British in exchange for keeping the NBC.

Another thing to keep in mind would be Spain's reaction to English colonies on the Mississippi. (IIRC they tried to destroy Louisiana on several occasions) It could easily spark a war between the two powers.

Perhaps the English colonies in TTL adopt a similar strategy to the Natives as the French did in OTL. Basically stating that if a Native American were to convert to Protestantism they would become a citizen equal to any white man.

 

[Asharella]

My assumption that there would be all the French & Indian Wars is based on the reality that they were all the North American theater of European wars. I don't think the changes in this TL will change the basically European rationales for those wars. Therefore there will be North American theaters that will include the allied tribes. However I think the outcomes will be stalemates in the U.S., which most of the French & Indian Wars actually were in OTL. I think all of them will be in TTL because I believe England will be less concerned about a New France that is only in the north.

My rationale for England being less concerned about a New France like that is that most of the antagonism against the French in OTL was due to their domination of the Ohio Country. I'm thinking a Quebec focused on the north would be more acceptable to the English, who are focused on the Ohio and Mississippi, and not considered worth the effort.

I agree that the Mestee would include anglicized Indians. Since the Iroquois pretty much did convert in OTL I'm assuming they would in TTL, add English methods to their own agriculture and technology, and add English as a second language. This would make them Mestee and full citizens of Ohio.

I agree there would be conflict with Spain over New Kent.

 

[Vitruvius]

My assumption that there would be all the French & Indian Wars is based on the reality that they were all the North American theater of European wars. I don't think the changes in this TL will change the basically European rationales for those wars. Therefore there will be North American theaters that will include the allied tribes. However I think the outcomes will be stalemates in the U.S., which most of the French & Indian Wars actually were in OTL. I think all of them will be in TTL because I believe England will be less concerned about a New France that is only in the north.

My rationale for England being less concerned about a New France like that is that most of the antagonism against the French in OTL was due to their domination of the Ohio Country. I'm thinking a Quebec focused on the north would be more acceptable to the English, who are focused on the Ohio and Mississippi, and not considered worth the effort.

I agree that the Mestee would include anglicized Indians. Since the Iroquois pretty much did convert in OTL I'm assuming they would in TTL, add English methods to their own agriculture and technology, and add English as a second language. This would make them Mestee and full citizens of Ohio.

I agree there would be conflict with Spain over New Kent.

Well I agree in principle but there in lies the problem. The colonial wars were in large part extensions of European wars. Which means if the war happens in Europe there will be conflict in North America. The French strategy through the 18th century was always to abandon the colonies (more or less) and focus on achieving victory on the continent. They could then use a position of strength to negotiate for the return of any colonies they might have lost. Britain to an extent did the opposite and used gains oversees as leverage to secure acceptable terms in a continental settlement especially as it concerned Hanover. That's a simplification and as Fearless Leader mentioned the wars will play out a bit differently but ultimately the British will probably still make a play for Quebec.

Another reason I see this is the Lake Ontario issue. Geographically its a bit of a chore to have to go up the Mohawk down the Oneida and Oswego across Lake Ontario then portage around Niagara to get to Lake Erie. There would be a lot of loading and offloading of cargo. Some kind of overland transport around Niagara, ships across Lake Ontario then either overland along the aforementioned rivers or assuming the British take the time to canalize them some kind of river barge. It would require the building of ports and ships on Lake Ontario for one. And this naturally would lead the British to eye the Lake's outlet the St Lawrence ie Quebec. Unless the British were willing to build the equivalent to the Erie Canal, unlikely given the resistance to building it IOTL (the Federal government wanted nothing to do with it, Governor Clinton got it through by sheer force of will) I just see this as a big impediment to developing Ohio as a serious colony unless...

Ultimately it would be a lot easier to access Ohio via the St Lawrence. This was always the concern for the Americans going back to the creation of the Erie Canal. There was huge opposition to construction of the Oswego Canal linking the Erie Canal to Lake Ontario because it was feared that it would divert trade and commerce with the Ohio valley and Great Lakes down the St Lawrence. Ultimately this is what finally happened with the construction of the St Lawrence Seaway in the 20th Century which sealed the fate of the Erie Canal and the cities of Upstate NY as transit points for cargo originating in the upper midwest.

So I think the British will inevitably look towards Quebec. They have strategic reasons to attack the French colony and colonists in Ohio clamoring for easy access to the Atlantic to export grain. A canal would be hugely expensive even just along the Mohawk-Oswego and this is still before the big boom in canal building in Europe. So the British could kill two birds with one stone and just take Quebec. In fact they could launch a two pronged naval attack down and up the St Lawrence. Though it may not be successful, especially with the distraction of the Spanish threatening New London. But it seems like its either strike at the French in Quebec to secure the St Lawrence of the Spanish in Florida/Mexico-Texas to secure the Mississippi. That's not to say that your timeline is implausible but its just food for thought. And as for the St Louis equivalent I'd vote for Rochester, as it is a major city in Kent and seeing as how Rochester NY isn't likely to exist anymore it seems only fair.

 

[Asharella]

Ah, I see your concern Vitruvius about the whole Lake Ontario route.

But I think it doesn't apply, because the cargo you are envisioning isn't the cargo I was envisioning as the trade that makes Ohio viable. In TTL Ohio is a fur colony populated by Mestee. Kayaks making the portages through Lake Ontario is more than enough to take care of this trade.

By the time Ohio starts to have more settlers the New Kent forts make going up and down river from and to New London sufficient for cargo. Of course eventually an Erie Canal will happen in TTL, just when is not sure.