Is there anything in the respective colonial set-ups of New France and British America that leads you to doubt they could ever have become one nation?
Undoubtedly there were marked differences between New France and British America. These differences extended from the exercise of government to the everyday life of the common man. The initial colonies in British America contrasted greatly also, yet eventually they were able to form a single nation, albeit in a federal form. What differences then were there between New France and British America as a whole that can be considered irreconcilable?
Undoubtedly there were marked differences between New France and British America. These differences extended from the exercise of government to the everyday life of the common man. The initial colonies in British America contrasted greatly also, yet eventually they were able to form a single nation, albeit in a federal form. What differences then were there between New France and British America as a whole that can be considered irreconcilable?
The language barrier was a significant difference and limited the absorption of either English migrants or their ways. Thus even when New France came under British Imperial rule she remained distinct from the other British colonies. One might argue that the assimilation of Louisiana shows that such a barrier is not insurmountable, but the population of Louisiana was far smaller and more exposed than in New France and so could not resist English influence to the same extent.
The difference in religion is of great importance, because the church in New France was so entwined with its colonial establishment and set-up. Religious ideals also played a significant part in the development of many of the North American colonies. Where New France was Catholic, the British colonies were predominantly Protestant. Even Maryland, a proprietary colony intended ‘to gain additional wealth and to provide a refuge for his [Lord Baltimore] fellow Catholics’[1], was settled largely by relocating Protestant colonists.[2]
The Catholic Church, through a bishop, held roughly one-third of political influence in New France. Power derived directly from the crown to the bishop, a governor general and intendant.[3] Although Louis XIV was keen to restrict the church to ecclesiastical affairs, by allowing Bishop Laval from 1663 to acquire large areas of land and then absolving him of his feudal burdens, the church became the feudal lord, or seigneur, of a sizable percentage of the population. This meant that the church in New France was not just a guide to the population, but it also held legal rights over large numbers of them. The only British colony where the church had a similar position of influence was in New England. Here though, the Puritan church was only powerful because the emigrants were of a similar pious mindset. It was not involved in land ownership as in New France.
The essentially feudal system of land ownership in Canada, known as the seigneurial system, cannot be reconciled with British American aspirations of independent land ownership. Most emigrants to the British colonies travelled with the promise that they would eventually be allotted their own plot of land, even if they had to endure years of indentured servitude first. In New France land was allocated to men of means, seigneurs who would then settle farmers on the land. These farmers, ‘habitants’, then paid the seigneurs a small amount in return for using their land. Once big plantation owners in Virginia began buying up all the land and leasing to smaller planters, these two systems of land-ownership began to look quite similar. Still, in Virginia the system provided far more opportunity for self-advancement than Canada's.
The seigneurial system created rigid class divides in New France, just as it was intended to. Although many seigneurs were little better off than their tenants, land-ownership provided them with status. Unlike the British colonies, where many colonists had emigrated dissatisfied with British society, New France sought to create a perfected version of French society. Traditional French social values were brought across the Atlantic. Men who made money through industry were looked down upon, and so many of those in a position to make the most of trade and industry did not.
This was completely at odds with the culture of all the British colonies. In Virginia status increased with wealth, which had to be gained by exploiting the land so as to reap maximum profits. Puritan society in New England, embraced the 'bourgeois values of thrift, industry and prudence'[4] as part of a worthy way of life.
It is difficult to imagine how two such different social establishments could have converged, and no doubt many French feared that if they joined the Americans in revolt in 1774 their way of life would have been eroded.
The social structure of each colony went very much hand in hand with the structure of their government. New France was governed after 1663 as a royal province. The colony was controlled for the king by the governor-general, assisted by an intendant who ‘was virtually a spy on the governor-general’[5]. The bishop and a royally appointed council were the only checks on the governor’s power, as the royal court was too far away to approve day-to-day decisions. Consequently, just as in France, the people of New France had no notion of representative government.
Conversely, English colonists were accustomed to some kind of representation in the form of Parliament. As a result representative assemblies were an integral part of colonial government in British America. Theoretically power was either in the hands of the crown or the proprietor, depending on the type of colony. In their absence they would appoint a governor to administrate. The governor would appoint a council; usually the wealthiest, most influential landowners, and freedmen would elect an assembly. In Massachusetts the assembly was more powerful, as they chose the council. The corporate owned Rhode Island and Connecticut colonies went even further, creating what was essentially a republic. The freemen elected the assembly, the council and the governor.[6] Even in the royal colonies where the governor was supposedly the premier power, the assemblies were dominant: ‘In 1635 the Virginia assembly and council arrested and shipped homeward a confrontational governor.’[7] For the French, these concepts would have been totally alien, and it is understandable that during the War for Independence they could see few advantages in switching to American rule. Moreover in Catholic France the king was appointed by God, so any challenge to the king’s authority was a challenge to Catholicism itself.
There are even more distinct differences at local government level. Authority in New France came from the governor and passed down the feudal ladder to lesser nobles. Church curés played an important role in local affairs: ‘the curé… was the real authority figure in the localities. It was to him the habitants turned for advice’[8]. Authority was given to those high in the fixed social hierarchy. In Virginia, local power and authority was something to be taken, attained alongside land and the subsequent wealth. County court officials appointed their own members, as did the panel of justices who would then select sheriffs. In this way the planter elite maintained a stranglehold on local government, using it to serve their own ends. New England and the other colonies had a more representative local government, but only those with property qualification could participate. This still meant that authority was determined by a vote, rather than by birthright.
Despite all this, the factor in their colonial establishment that set New France and British America apart the most was their respective economies. Almost everywhere in British America the economy thrived. The opportunity to trade with other British colonies, especially in the West Indies, resulted in an increasingly capitalist society in British America, where in theory every free white man was capable of acquiring wealth and influence. American economy was based on trade for profit, whereas the peasant in New France was still rooted to the land, a land which could not provide anything like the profits brought in by tobacco. Without these profits the habitants could not significantly increase their acreage, which would in turn increase their profit until the common farmer could become a man of influence.
In conclusion, there are a great many factors to which the existence of two separate nations in North America might be attributed. The language, religion, society, administration and culture of New France were so different to America’s that it is difficult to see how they could have merged successfully in 1774. Only by accepting the loss of so many of the features that made them French could the Canadiens have become the fourteenth colony.
[1] Alan Taylor - American Colonies p.137
[2] Richard Middleton - Colonial America p.78-9
[3] Francis Parkman - France and England in North America p.212
[4] Eccles - Canada under Louis XIV, 1663-1701 p.57
[5] Francis Parkman - France and England in North America p.212
[6] Richard Middleton - Colonial America p.318
[7] Alan Taylor - American Colonies p.140
[8] J.L. Finlay - Pre-Confederation Canada: The Structure of Canadian History to 1867 p.90
