France Retains Canada/Ohio Valley To Britain.

[Umbric Man]

A Seven Years' War proposal.

Britain and her colonies successfully took all the forts within the OTL United States during the Seven Years' War, specifically during 1758-1760. Colonial Americans such as Rogers' Rangers took Detroit; William Johnson captured Fort Niagara; and many colonial troops played a part under British generals in capturing Forts Duquense, Carillon, St. Frederic, and others.

However, what if French Canada itself was saved? This includes what would become most of OTL Canada (certainly all the territory of the future provinces of Ontario/Quebec/Manitoba/Saskatchewan), outside of Nova Scotia, Rupert's Land, and Newfoundland. Wolfe fails to capture Quebec and from there no attack on Montreal or Fort Frontenac could surface due to butterflies. You could, even for survivability purposes, allow Fort Beausejour in *New Brunswick and Louisbourg/Cape Breton to stay French to allow accessibility to France for Canada via Monckton or Amherst being unlucky enough to seize them in 1755 and 1758 respectively.

Essentially, this means a British America holding onto what became the United States' original territory of 1783 (and the Floridas, since the Spanish aspect is not a concern here) and most of what would have become British North America in the same period sans Nova Scotia and Newfoundland staying French: now the British colonists have plenty of land to move west to while French Canada still has access to France in the east and furs to the north and west, with the Great Lakes and Appalachians being borders between the two colonial empires. With most of the border forts within New York becoming British (Crown Point, Ticonderoga, Niagara) I feel a border similar to the real-world USA/BNA of 1783 could be hashed out as well.

-Would an American Revolution still happen with Canada humbled and the Ohio Valley/*Northwest Territory and *Southwest Territory available for colonial Americans to move into? After all, a Proclamation of 1763 could still conceivably happen and much land has still been gained to force Britain to feel the need to pay off for it with taxes. Certainly the army stationed in the colonies has a real reason to be there now (but can still anger Colonials via said taxes to pay for it).
-Would Nova Scotia, Rupert's Land, and Newfoundland be the focus of any new colonial war if the thirteen colonies stay within the British Empire and a Revolution is averted? If an American Revolution still happens would France attempt to size one or more of these as prizes like they did with Tobago in OTL? As La Perouse devastated Rupert's Land in OTL I could see a French Canada outright claiming it rather than merely leaving it to Britain in its raided state.
-Would Nova Scotia perhaps feel a stronger link to the thirteen colonies with French Canada breathing down its neck compared to the others? Or be more an 'outpost' like Newfoundland was and stay completely dependent on Britain? After all, Yankees only began to move in droves to it in the 1760s with the Canadians under British rule - here it's still very much a strategic threat to both sides.
-If *New Brunswick and *Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton remain French as explained above would Acadians there eventually regroup in them and sort-of revive Acadia away from its original focal point (Nova Scotia)?

 

[Coyote Knight]

IIRC, France was offered a chance to regain Canada/New France in exchange for her valuable Caribbean colonies. Not wanting to lose their more valuable colonies, and with New France being sparsely populated, France opted to let the British have New France.

 

[Mumby]

If France retains Canada, it seems likely it would retain Louisiana west of the Mississippi. In this situation, the French colonies still pose a potential threat (though considerably lesser) to the survival of the British colonies. In that situation, it seems likely that Americans would be willing to put up with more to safeguard their security.

 

[Diez Mil Cantos]

I believe the habit of the French Kings was to place higher emphasis in winning battles in Europe, so that they could always trade their colonies back if they'd been taking during the war since the French Navy was so mismanaged.
I believe you have to either 1) Damage the British Navy or 2) Improve the French Navy in order to hamper British attempts at seizing the Ohio and St Laurent Valleys
You could also have some failure on Prussia's part, causing France and co. gain the upper hand on the continent (where Britain's holdings are on shaky ground) and cause a status quo anti bellum, or a modified version of it.
This still leaves the French with Canada, Louisiane, but it gives a lens of perspective that they might need to encourage (and possibly force) more people to emmigrate to the colonies in order to keep them ahead of the next war.
If that's the case, the thirteen colonies might not declare independence together, or any unrest might be against the French/ Natives of the interior and perhaps against themselves, depending on how harsh the British response to the loss of the war is on the colonies.

 

[Just a Rube]

Obvious change: Pontiac's Rebellion and the Proclamation of 1763.

Pontiac and most of his compatriots were French allies during the French and Indian War, so the British may be less willing to conciliate them afterwards and restrict colonial expansion, preferring to settle loyal English settlers in those lands rather than allowing potential French allies to remain as a threat for the next Anglo-French war.

 

[Tripwire]

The Ohio tribes, including the Mingo, would break off their vassalage to the Iroquois and go over entirely to the French. As a result, massive parts of their land wouldn't be sold from under their feet by the eastern Iroquois, (Treaty of Fort Stanwix) but if the French lose the area later they're likely to be in a tight spot. Until then, however, British settlement would stop.

I'm about halfway through a very interesting book about the history of the Ohio tribes from Iroquois annexation of the area in the Beaver Wars, to after the American Revolution.

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

If France retains Canada, it seems likely it would retain Louisiana west of the Mississippi. In this situation, the French colonies still pose a potential threat (though considerably lesser) to the survival of the British colonies. In that situation, it seems likely that Americans would be willing to put up with more to safeguard their security.

How likely would the British Parlement support settlement of the West in this scenario?

 

[Lord Grattan]

How likely would the British Parliament support settlement of the West in this scenario?

Certainly it would. As settlers and British business interests grew interested in various areas of "the West" treaties would be made with the natives whereby they would surrender their interests in the land. The process would look very similar to what occurred in (what became) OTL Canada: A History of Treaty-Making in Canada.

 

[Tripwire]

How likely would the British Parlement support settlement of the West in this scenario?

They already supported settlement in the West, they just wanted to make it more orderly so as to try and prevent expensive wars with the native tribes.