Talk:Treaty of Paris (1763)

what is the importance of the treaty of paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.201.2 (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

There should be some discussion of the Treaty of Fontainebleau, a secret treaty by which France ceded the Louisiana Territory to Spain in November 1762. France saw that it was losing the war and negotiated this treaty with Spain. The cession was recognized later. The article currently says that Spain gained these after the Treaty of Paris. I'm not familiar enough with this complex set of treaties and negotiations to venture a revision. For references, see for example [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] older ≠ wiser 12:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

Although some discussion of the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762) has been added to this page about the Treaty of Paris (1763), the "complex set of treaties and negotiations" seems to be difficult to summarize. There's more on the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762) and Napoleon's secret Third Treaty of San Ildefonso 1800 on the page about the Louisiana Purchase 1803--including the following summary: "Throughout the second half of the 18th century, Louisiana was a pawn on the chessboard of European politics.[4]". ScottS (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

I just can't believe it. They sold us out for Guadeloupe........ stupid french.

"Preferring to keep Guadaloupe, France gave up New France and all of its claims to the territory east of the Mississippi River to Britain." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.137.153 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

This makes me sad.... there are never any expense reports on any of these losses; only talk of the fact that they DID in fact lose these things. We live in an unexperienced time. We have no idea how much losing a territory can hurt a country.... *sigh* Just makes like more difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.241.38 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

The Canada vs. Guadaloupe is a historical myth (see Philip Lawson, "A Taste for Empire and Glory" essay IV, pg. 577) - It's been thoroughly debunked and should be removed from the article * - AD, Ottawa, November 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.101.175 (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm sorry but it's not a myth; most people are aware of it. Read the right books.VincentG 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

Canada vs. Guadeloupe may not totally qualify as a myth, but it certainly is an historical shortcut, and a widespread common belief that should not be spread any further by means of this page. The British never had any intention of negotiating Canada. As a matter of fact the strategical importance of Canada was first identified by Pitt the Elder in the 1750s, and ousting the French from North America had been a constant goal ever after. The French, recognising after their 1759 and 1760 defeats that they could not organise an effective defense of Canada, had no intention of negotiating back Canada at the Treaty of Paris either. They managed to negotiate the island of Guadeloupe back, but it had nothing to do with Canada. Claiming that they preferred Guadaloupe to Canada is entirely preposterous and should be removed from this page. Also the reference link in the article supposed to sustain this claim leads to a webpage that does not say anything either about a supposed Canada vs. Guadeloupe deal. If anybody can bring a serious reference for such a claim, I'd be interested to see it. ALEX8561 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 8561 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I also believe there is a great part of myth in the Canada vs. Guadeloupe trade. However, discussing it here is of little help compared to finding a credible and verifiable source and quoting it inside the article itself. -- Mathieugp (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

There was indeed a major debate in Britain over Guadeloupe versus Canada, and Pitt insisted on Canada for strategis reasons. There is a good recent summary at Colin G. Calloway Professor of History and Samson Occom Professor of Native American Studies Dartmouth College (2006). The Scratch of a Pen : 1763 and the Transformation of North America. Oxford U.P. p. 8.. Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I have absolutely no clue about this stuff...I am just looking on here about History homework!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.15.3 (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

On February 10,1783 the Treaty of Paris was signed. Benjamin West, John Jay, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Laurens, and William Temple Franklin signed it and celebrated. The Treaty of Paris was a document which stated that as the point at which France conveyed Louisiana Territory to Spain. The Treaty of Paris was to give Britain the east side of the Mississippi (including Baton Rouge, Louisiana which was to be part of the British territory of West Florida). New Orleans on the east side was given to France. The Mississippi River corridor in what is modern day Louisiana was to be reunited following the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.45.102 (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't see how Pitt could have been a former prime minister since he was not PM until 1766. Is the rest of the line about him right? Also it probably should call him Pitt the Elder and Pitt on its own normaly refers to Pitt the Younger. (Pitt the Elder is normal called the Earl of Chatham but that does not happen until 1766) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.191.3 (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Pitt led the government from 1757 to 1761. It was one of only two instances in the history of the premiership (Lord Salisbury is the other) during which the leader of the ministry was not First Lord of the Treasury, and therefore the Duke of Newcastle is occasionally listed as the prime minister during this period instead, such as on Wikipedia's own List of Prime Ministers of Great Britain. But he was very definitely chief minister during those four years, and all his contemporaries, including the King who reluctantly appointed him, considered him such. Binabik80 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

The text here is going overboard about the supposed magnaminity of the British. In the 18th century, it was common for countries to return much of their conquests at the negotiating table. France, for example, had given back the entire Austrian Netherlands in the peace negotiations in 1748. In this treaty, Britain pretty much kept everything it wanted (eastern North America, India) and gave back a few colonies it deemed of lesser importance. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

The Treaty was heavily criticised by Pitt for its appeasement of France ("We retain nothing, although we have conquered everything"). You have to remember that the sugar islands of the West Indies were extremely lucrative, there was even a debate over whether to keep them and return Canada instead. A lot of Whigs found the Treaty as a betrayal perpetrated by the new king.--Britannicus (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I have trimmed one sentence which said members of parliament who opposed the treaty were dismissed from office, since this claim is not mentioned in the source listed (Fowler's book).Asburyparker (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I also took out a phrase about Winston Churchill because it was pointless to the article, and not based on a source.Asburyparker (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Churchill-- the Prime Minister-- was also leading historian and I restored the quotation, with a citation. Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

What is that blue extending to Alberta and Saskatchewan ???? If there were any Europeans, they were French, no British. See the La Vérendrye brothers and a French fort close to the Rockies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.217.186 (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Exactly where in Paris was the treaty signed? Please specify the name of the building and street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.162.13 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

It was at the Hotel d'York, now part of the Paris Institute of Political Studies. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

Saint-Louis winchel 2603:7000:CBF0:88D0:5564:E7F1:1EA9:A03C (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hanover v GB wouldn't Great Britain actually b the Hanoverian Empire ? John5Russell3Finley (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

They were what was known as a "personal union" through their common ruler; they were never joined politically. --Andy Anderson 05:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]