Discussion:
What if France won the global 7 Years War, when would BNA colonists "Texas" Across the Appalachians?
Add Reply
Rob
2017-05-13 14:49:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This what if is inspired by a certain tension in what-if's about the 7 Years War and French & Indian Wars.

On the one hand, there's a near-consensus that for reasons of their demographic/population lead, Anglo-Americans are ultimately destined to eclipse and territorially expand at the expense of Franco-Americans and Amerindians.

On the other hand, there was contingency aplenty in the global 7 Years War, a British victory on all colonial fronts was not foreordained, and a French-led coalition victory in Europe is quite plausible.

So, it seems to me that a timeline where France and its allies win against Prussia and Hanover in Europe, and where France gets stronger in the Caribbean, Africa and India, expanding at British expense, easily could have happened, but nonetheless, France is unlikely to occupy any of Britain's 13 colonies, and eventually local demographic factors will mean colonization of areas beyond the Alleghenies and Appalachians to the Mississippi will become irresistible.

Do you all agree with this latter premise?

If so, by what point is the Anglification of the trans-appalachian west going to happen? In this alternate world, even if France remains ahead of Britain as a global power, we would suppose that locally driven expansion from Anglo-America would see english-speakers "Texas the shit out of" the Trans-Appalachian West.

Poll:
If France won 7 Years War, when would Anglo-Americans "pull a Texas" over Trans-Appalachia?
a) Never
b) 1775
c) 1785
d) 1795
e) 1805
f) 1815
g) 1825
Alex Milman
2017-05-13 17:06:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
This what if is inspired by a certain tension in what-if's about the 7 Years War and French & Indian Wars.
On the one hand, there's a near-consensus that for reasons of their demographic/population lead, Anglo-Americans are ultimately destined to eclipse and territorially expand at the expense of Franco-Americans and Amerindians.
On the other hand, there was contingency aplenty in the global 7 Years War, a British victory on all colonial fronts was not foreordained, and a French-led coalition victory in Europe is quite plausible.
So, it seems to me that a timeline where France and its allies win against Prussia and Hanover in Europe, and where France gets stronger in the Caribbean, Africa and India, expanding at British expense, easily could have happened, but nonetheless, France is unlikely to occupy any of Britain's 13 colonies, and eventually local demographic factors will mean colonization of areas beyond the Alleghenies and Appalachians to the Mississippi will become irresistible.
Do you all agree with this latter premise?
If so, by what point is the Anglification of the trans-appalachian west going to happen? In this alternate world, even if France remains ahead of Britain as a global power, we would suppose that locally driven expansion from Anglo-America would see english-speakers "Texas the shit out of" the Trans-Appalachian West.
If France won 7 Years War, when would Anglo-Americans "pull a Texas" over Trans-Appalachia?
a) Never
b) 1775
c) 1785
d) 1795
e) 1805
f) 1815
g) 1825
Rob, how can one put any meaningful date on something like that? There are
too many factors unclear, including the obvious question what the French
victory would mean for the demographic situation in North America in a short
and long term.

I'd assume that India would be much more important and a complete French
victory means French India instead of British with a long list of the
consequences.

OTOH, the French government never tried too hard to populate America and
there was not too much of a private initiative either so if nothing else
changes, most of the French possessions will be eventually doomed with only
a much smaller "practical" part left, say Quebec and Louisiana (in modern
borders, give or take few pieces). The rest, short of the unexpected massive
immigration from France, is hardly sustainable: it all hinges on a single
river route.
Rob
2017-05-14 14:09:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
This what if is inspired by a certain tension in what-if's about the 7 Years War and French & Indian Wars.
On the one hand, there's a near-consensus that for reasons of their demographic/population lead, Anglo-Americans are ultimately destined to eclipse and territorially expand at the expense of Franco-Americans and Amerindians.
On the other hand, there was contingency aplenty in the global 7 Years War, a British victory on all colonial fronts was not foreordained, and a French-led coalition victory in Europe is quite plausible.
So, it seems to me that a timeline where France and its allies win against Prussia and Hanover in Europe, and where France gets stronger in the Caribbean, Africa and India, expanding at British expense, easily could have happened, but nonetheless, France is unlikely to occupy any of Britain's 13 colonies, and eventually local demographic factors will mean colonization of areas beyond the Alleghenies and Appalachians to the Mississippi will become irresistible.
Do you all agree with this latter premise?
If so, by what point is the Anglification of the trans-appalachian west going to happen? In this alternate world, even if France remains ahead of Britain as a global power, we would suppose that locally driven expansion from Anglo-America would see english-speakers "Texas the shit out of" the Trans-Appalachian West.
If France won 7 Years War, when would Anglo-Americans "pull a Texas" over Trans-Appalachia?
a) Never
b) 1775
c) 1785
d) 1795
e) 1805
f) 1815
g) 1825
Rob, how can one put any meaningful date on something like that?
It's the art of estimation, the algebra of conjecture. My guess at the equation is around d) 1795

There are
Post by Alex Milman
too many factors unclear, including the obvious question what the French
victory would mean for the demographic situation in North America in a short
and long term.
See, it is not clear to me that it will mean much for the long-term demographic situation in North America. I don't see why it would particularly reduce immigration or birth rates. The French could increase immigration if they win, but a deliberate effort to do so would have to be quite massive to make up for France starting from such a low comparative base.
Post by Alex Milman
I'd assume that India would be much more important and a complete French
victory means French India instead of British with a long list of the
consequences.
Yes, indeed, the global consequences and consequences for the French and British exchequers, global trading patterns and areas of strategic interest would be quite significant.
Post by Alex Milman
OTOH, the French government never tried too hard to populate America and
there was not too much of a private initiative either so if nothing else
changes, most of the French possessions will be eventually doomed with only
a much smaller "practical" part left, say Quebec and Louisiana (in modern
borders, give or take few pieces). The rest, short of the unexpected massive
immigration from France, is hardly sustainable: it all hinges on a single
river route.
Bingo - that is what I assume the default answer to be over the long-term and why I phrased the question the way I did, but I acknowledge there is a wide range of possible outcomes and wanted to invite discussion and alternate points of view.
The Horny Goat
2017-05-15 10:22:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 14 May 2017 07:09:30 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
See, it is not clear to me that it will mean much for the long-term demographic situation in North America. I don't see why it would particularly reduce immigration or birth rates. The French could increase immigration if they win, but a deliberate effort to do so would have to be quite massive to make up for France starting from such a low comparative base.
On top of that you could see a SMALLER French population today than in
OTL - a French victory probably butterflies away the 'revenge of the
cradle' period (primarily 1780-1840 and also again at the end of the
19th century) where families of 8-12 children were common and
accordingly there was a population explosion amongst French
Canadians.. This was seen as the best possible defence against
assimilation into the British system.

If Quebec doesn't falll in 1759 as per your TL there's not going to be
a fear of assimilation and therefore the population explosion is much
lessened.

The took place primarily in Quebec but also in noterhn New Brunswick.
Alex Milman
2017-05-15 15:10:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
This what if is inspired by a certain tension in what-if's about the 7 Years War and French & Indian Wars.
On the one hand, there's a near-consensus that for reasons of their demographic/population lead, Anglo-Americans are ultimately destined to eclipse and territorially expand at the expense of Franco-Americans and Amerindians.
On the other hand, there was contingency aplenty in the global 7 Years War, a British victory on all colonial fronts was not foreordained, and a French-led coalition victory in Europe is quite plausible.
So, it seems to me that a timeline where France and its allies win against Prussia and Hanover in Europe, and where France gets stronger in the Caribbean, Africa and India, expanding at British expense, easily could have happened, but nonetheless, France is unlikely to occupy any of Britain's 13 colonies, and eventually local demographic factors will mean colonization of areas beyond the Alleghenies and Appalachians to the Mississippi will become irresistible.
Do you all agree with this latter premise?
If so, by what point is the Anglification of the trans-appalachian west going to happen? In this alternate world, even if France remains ahead of Britain as a global power, we would suppose that locally driven expansion from Anglo-America would see english-speakers "Texas the shit out of" the Trans-Appalachian West.
If France won 7 Years War, when would Anglo-Americans "pull a Texas" over Trans-Appalachia?
a) Never
b) 1775
c) 1785
d) 1795
e) 1805
f) 1815
g) 1825
Rob, how can one put any meaningful date on something like that?
It's the art of estimation, the algebra of conjecture. My guess at the equation is around d) 1795
There are
Post by Alex Milman
too many factors unclear, including the obvious question what the French
victory would mean for the demographic situation in North America in a short
and long term.
See, it is not clear to me that it will mean much for the long-term demographic situation in North America. I don't see why it would particularly reduce immigration or birth rates. The French could increase immigration if they win, but a deliberate effort to do so would have to be quite massive to make up for France starting from such a low comparative base.
Post by Alex Milman
I'd assume that India would be much more important and a complete French
victory means French India instead of British with a long list of the
consequences.
Yes, indeed, the global consequences and consequences for the French and British exchequers, global trading patterns and areas of strategic interest would be quite significant.
Among other things, this would mean a, need in maintaining a very strong navy
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
OTOH, the French government never tried too hard to populate America and
there was not too much of a private initiative either so if nothing else
changes, most of the French possessions will be eventually doomed with only
a much smaller "practical" part left, say Quebec and Louisiana (in modern
borders, give or take few pieces). The rest, short of the unexpected massive
immigration from France, is hardly sustainable: it all hinges on a single
river route.
Bingo - that is what I assume the default answer to be over the long-term and why I phrased the question the way I did, but I acknowledge there is a wide range of possible outcomes and wanted to invite discussion and alternate points of view.
Well, my view is the same as yours so there is not too much of a discussion. :-)

It seems that there was not too many of the landless peasants in France and
at least some of the early settlements had been by the French Huguenots not
too many of whom left in France by the time of the 7YW so there was no clear
basis for the mass migration and you can't get too much of a population out
of the hunters, plantation owners and the prostitutes (those would definitely
gravitate to the cities :-)).
kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
2017-05-15 16:56:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
t seems that there was not too many of the landless peasants in
France and
at least some of the early settlements had been by the French
Huguenots not
too many of whom left in France by the time of the 7YW
I seem to remember that by the time of Laws and paper money in France
they were deporting paupers and petty criminals to Louisiana.
Alex Milman
2017-05-15 21:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Post by Alex Milman
t seems that there was not too many of the landless peasants in
France and
at least some of the early settlements had been by the French Huguenots not
too many of whom left in France by the time of the 7YW
I seem to remember that by the time of Laws and paper money in France
they were deporting paupers and petty criminals to Louisiana.
You remember correctly and the whole thing was immortalized in 'Manon Lescaut'.
But, unlike the Tudorian England, the paupers in XVIII France were not
numerous enough to make a demographic difference and the same goes for the
petty criminals.

The whole thing could work out if this was Australian situation with no
outside pressure but Louisiana was just on the way of the demographically
explosive British colonies.
Rob
2017-05-20 14:26:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
at least some of the early settlements had been by the French Huguenots not
too many of whom left in France by the time of the 7YW so there was no clear
basis for the mass migration and you can't get too much of a population out
of the hunters, plantation owners and the prostitutes (those would definitely
gravitate to the cities :-)).
Not this again.


Please.

What is the irresistible attraction, cliched at this point, of populating French overseas colonies with Huguenots?

...and what's so inherently inadequate about populating colonies with good French Catholics or indeed Catholics of other European nations (Irish, German, Belgian, Swiss, etc.)?
The Horny Goat
2017-05-20 16:01:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 20 May 2017 07:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
...and what's so inherently inadequate about populating colonies with good French Catholics or indeed Catholics of other European nations (Irish, German, Belgian, Swiss, etc.)?
I'm pretty sure that nearly all of the French Canadians who were
responsible for the 'revenge of the cradle' were Catholics.

Certainly the priests who urged them on were.
Alex Milman
2017-05-20 16:39:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
at least some of the early settlements had been by the French Huguenots not
too many of whom left in France by the time of the 7YW so there was no clear
basis for the mass migration and you can't get too much of a population out
of the hunters, plantation owners and the prostitutes (those would definitely
gravitate to the cities :-)).
Not this again.
Please.
What is the irresistible attraction, cliched at this point, of populating French overseas colonies with Huguenots?
Not too many of those left in France by the time of the 7YW. I was referencing
to a much earlier period.
Post by Rob
...and what's so inherently inadequate about populating colonies with good French Catholics or indeed Catholics of other European nations (Irish, German, Belgian, Swiss, etc.)?
Actually, I was talking about the whores and petty criminals, both of which
categories were good Catholics but, as I said, gravitated to the cities due
to the specifics of their professions. Somehow, I have difficulties imagining
Manon Lescaut and Chevalier Renato des Grieux as a typical frontier couple. :-)
Rob
2017-06-08 01:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
An Anglo-America restricted to the coast seems like an interesting concept to play with, even if I do not think it is the most likely outcome.

I would imagine that as the population grows urbanization, industrialization and to some degree a "New England-ization" might creep steadily southward down the eastern seaboard without a western frontier outlet.

I think the slave trade would be banned on the OTL schedule. The Atlantic colonies might limit or discourage immigration a generation or more before the OTL US.

Especially if still politically part of the British Empire, the Atlantic colonies might become a source of many colonial adventurers and settlers in places like Australia, New Zealnd and South Africa.
Don Phillipson
2017-05-15 22:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Rob, how can one put any meaningful date on something like that?
My guess at the equation is around d) 1795
The OP forgets Toussaint L'Ouverture.

After 1789, French governments during the revolutionary period
paid no attention to overseas colonies -- until Napoleon got reports
of the massacre of colonists dumb enough to have remained in
Haiti after the successful slave rebellion (obviously inspired by
1789.) Napoleon's general colonial policy is indicated by his
willingness to sell off Louisiana. When the monarchy was
restored, French colonial eyes turned south to Africa.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Don Phillipson
2017-05-15 17:32:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
. . . for reasons of their demographic/population lead, Anglo-Americans
are
ultimately destined to eclipse and territorially expand at the expense of
Franco-Americans and Amerindians.
This seems to ascribe expansion to some undefined invisible force.
It is more to the point to list practical differences between the colonial
powers in N. America. The French attempted to replicate the homeland
social and economic systems, under strict control by the king via the
army. Free migration was forbidden, travel between settlements
required a licence, certain occupations (e.g. printing and ship-
building) were totally prohibited (as infringing on monopolies in
homeland France) and non-Catholics were not allowed to live
in "New France." By contrast, the separate British colonies
competed aganst each other to attract immigrants (including
Quakers, Catholics and dissenters as well as Anglicans) and
maintained a more-or-less free economic system. (If you wanted
to print a newspaper or build a ship, you went ahead and did it.)
These differences offer other reasons why, although French
colonization started first, the French were outnumbered tenfold
within 150 years.
. . . France is unlikely to occupy any of Britain's 13 colonies, and
eventually
local demographic factors will mean colonization of areas beyond the
Alleghenies and Appalachians to the Mississippi will become irresistible.
Problem: Queen Anne's Proclamation (approx. 1710) recognized the
sovereignty of organized Indian tribes outside the colonies, and prohibited
settlement on their land except by treaty agreement with Indian chiefs.
(This was one of the causes of 1776.) When Britain expanded into
Ontario and the prairies it did so by treaty with the local inhabitants.
This is one reason why Canada had (almost) no Indian wars.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Loading...