WI: French rather than Anglo Dominated North America

The history of the OTL is one wherein the English and later British won the war (literal and figurative) for supremacy in North America against the French. While the French lost territory through war, they had also failed to properly exploit their North American holdings in comparison to England/Britain. They were underpopulated and underutilized. This was one of the reasons Louisiana was sold to the United States. It was a vast, rich territory which only had value to the French because of France's Caribbean colonies, which it lost to rebellion. And as a result, North America is controlled by two nations which are descended from the United Kingdom and span from sea to shining sea --- other than Mexico.

What if the situation were different? What if it were the French that had been successful on the continent, and created strong, culturally French colonies which sidelined and possibly booted out the English? This does not mean France controls the continent forever, but that any subsequent nation(s) would be derived from the French in the same way that the United States and Canada are descended from and still have cultural, societal, legal, governmental connections to Britain and England.

The main problem is the distinct lack of migrations motivation in France, which characterize it during its two colonial periods.

Without dense enough settlements and human presence, you're certain to have an issue about political permanence.
And having one getting more important than IOTL is gonna be trickly : the royal power had a monopoly on migrations, and that would prevent a similar situation as what existed in England.

Your better bet would be to prevent Religious War in France, and perennize the first colonization attempts in North America during Valois-Angoulême era, but that's not going to be that easy (especially with the rivality with Habsburgs).

Even with that, you'd probably have rather a strong French North America, rivaling with Spanish or English North America, but not one dominating one.

LSCatilina said:

The main problem is the distinct lack of migrations motivation in France, which characterize it during its two colonial periods.

Without dense enough settlements and human presence, you're certain to have an issue about political permanence.
And having one getting more important than IOTL is gonna be trickly : the royal power had a monopoly on migrations, and that would prevent a similar situation as what existed in England.

Your better bet would be to prevent Religious War in France, and perennize the first colonization attempts in North America during Valois-Angoulême era, but that's not going to be that easy (especially with the rivality with Habsburgs).

Even with that, you'd probably have rather a strong French North America, rivaling with Spanish or English North America, but not one dominating one.

Click to expand...

What he said, the french simply were terrible at colonizing compared to the English.

And also consider that when you match up the st. Lawrence valley with the u.s's eastern seaboard, the British have so much territorial advantage that it's nearly impossible for the french to win on the continent.

MorningDew said:

What he said, the french simply were terrible at colonizing compared to the English.

Click to expand...

It's less being terrible at, than having pretty much different conceptions of colonisation than English, then British (a bit like Spanish colonial empire was built on different structure and settlements patterns).

More trade focused in Canada, for instance, which helped to comes with a different relationship with natives which itself prevented a massive settlement possibility*

*One can rightfully argue that the meager colonial pressure, mostly due to the relatively better sort of the average peasant and the maniorial structure of New France not giving huge advantages, fueled that.

Situation was, that said, really different in Carribeans and Louisiana, where production was a focus : but we're mainly talking about specialized production (sugar, mostly) focused on trade and involving mass slavery (including much more hostile relations with native and their enslavement in Louisiana) rather than european workforce.

Devellopment of Louisiana, trough the infamous Compagnie du Mississipi, was seen as a great potential for production and trade, but it turned quickly into a speculation bubble.
In spite of its potential, the profit one could effectively take from it was meager.

With a right PoD, maybe you could turn southern Louisiana as part of the Carribean ensemble (meaning a hugely enslaved population, think Haiti ratio).
I wonder if an early french failure in India could mean a re-focus on this region?

So you may need at least two PoDs : undisturbed early wave of colonisation (no Wars of Religion), and a Caribbeanised southern Louisiana.

Still, pretty different from what happened with English colonies in North America.

LSCatilina said:

[...] pretty different from what happened with English colonies in North America.

Click to expand...

These characteristics are not necesserily related to a conception of colonization of nation a, b or c. As I see it, geography is the key here. An isolated Anglophone Quebec would also be underpopulated and deeply dependent on fur trapping. On the other hand, if hugenots, that otherwise would simply go to the Netherlands or Germany, had settled New England before the Pilgrims did, French "New England" would easily be more important than any other British colony in North America.

Lampiao said:

As I see it, geography is the key here.

Click to expand...

While geography does influes (at the very least for economical development possibilities), geographical determinism should be avoided IMO. Basically, it's about determining the relationship between these factors (which should include as well the political/social situation in the metropole).

I mentioned Lousiana (I'm talking there about the broader region, not the current state), that knew an important development with USA : this is a good exemple on how French colonial development in America differed.
Focus on trade, tentative of plantation economy; contrary to what existed in British America and that eventually get develloped as in a farmer/craftsman provincial development.

Eventually, decisions (or lack of) made in european courts influed greatly : the reliance on metropole, compared to the relative self-reliance of British colonies, is a political choice that, for what matter French North America, can be found as well in Canada than Carribean region in spite of pretty much different geographic situations.

An isolated Anglophone Quebec would also be underpopulated and deeply dependent on fur trapping.

Click to expand...

Never said it wouldn't be the same as British North America IOTL (nor that anyone did that claim, as far as I know).
But, there again, while in a roughly similar region than New England (climatically, and for resources), it simply didn't evolved the same.

On the other hand, if hugenots, that otherwise would simply go to the Netherlands or Germany, had settled New England before the Pilgrims did, French "New England" would easily be more important than any other British colony in North America.

Click to expand...

Doubt it : too few numbers, locked possibilities to move by sea (it was more or less seen as a valve for what matter England, with the more or less benevolent indiferrence of the government, when it was something that wasn't tolerated in France).

Best chances would be with a sustained early effort of colonisation, with more metissage with natives (a weird mix of Spanish situation and what happened IOTL) and a greater reliance on North American trade for what matter Louisiana.

Granted, it certainly won't be enough for a dominating French North America (critically with two distinct franco-american cultures : one *Canadienne and the other *Antillaise). But I underlined that in my first post, so I think this point was agreed before being raised.

Ok, let me make some addenda here. I'm not trying to be strictly deterministic here, but the geographical location of the French main colonies highly influenced in their failure and IMO all European colonialism in America wasn't very different, at least, in the early stages of a colony (the transiction from extractivsm to a more complex settler society is pretty much a pattern everywhere in the Americas).

The French didn't have the means to settle their personae non grata in the Americas, fair enough. However, IMO it wasn't a royal impulsion to settle the Thirteen Colonies that granted their development. Geography does not only determine the agricultural/extractivist possibilities. whilst climate-wise Canada are pretty much similar, only New England had the benefit of the triangular trade with the Caribbean. New France was only a snowy river valley insulated by British colonialism, it doesn't matter how the French mentality can change, without more land, they cannot compete. Also, both New France and Louisiana are river valleys with a very narrow coast, all the geographical parallels in the Americas (Rio de la Plata and the Amazon) suggest a slow development. Finally, regarding Louisiana, the American South only "boomed" after the invention of the Cotton Gin, IMO it's not fair to make a parallel here.

Again, I'm not trying to be deterministic, but, considering the (lack of) a naval tradition, Franch could only be dominant if they had better colonies.

Lampiao said:

The French didn't have the means to settle their personae non grata in the Americas, fair enough. However, IMO it wasn't a royal impulsion to settle the Thirteen Colonies that granted their development.

Click to expand...

My point exactly : English settlement wasn't about royal impulsion, and it was let more or less as such, when French colonial policy was all about royal impulsion and not only in North America but elsewhere as well.

Geography does not only determine the agricultural/extractivist possibilities. whilst climate-wise Canada are pretty much similar, only New England had the benefit of the triangular trade with the Caribbean.

Click to expand...

While it played, it's not the only factor : New France was largely built on maniorial structures, dominated by a mercantilist policy.

New France was not doomed to export raw materials, it was a concious political choice that it would remain as such : the colony wasn't to be an economical rival to the metropole.

Not that New France was cut from triangular trade : Louisbourg is a good exemple of the contrary, but one integrated within an internal economic drive.

New France was only a snowy river valley insulated by British colonialism, it doesn't matter how the French mentality can change, without more land, they cannot compete.

Click to expand...

But there was more land : you had an expansion over Great Lakes and Ohio valley that was simply not used as for huge settlement in face of both political choices and basic limitations when it came to manpower.

Finally, regarding Louisiana, the American South only "boomed" after the invention of the Cotton Gin, IMO it's not fair to make a parallel here.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree : Cotton Gin allowed cotton plantation to boom even more than it did before, and plantation economy in North America was firmly established long before it went mechanised.

There's nothing that would have technically prevented a tobacco and sugar plantation in Louisiana : if it failed, in spite of IOTL tentatives, the reason is more on a different takes on colonial exploitation. I mean, just look at John Law's attempts.

but, considering the (lack of) a naval tradition, Franch could only be dominant if they had better colonies.

Click to expand...

Well, by the XVIth century, neither England or France had a really obvious naval tradition (as a state sponsored naval tradition of course, we don't want to digress onto local and cultural aspects).

I don't think the difference regarding navies (that really because obvious with the XIXth century) should be exagerated there.

There wasn't really a formal drive towards colonisation by the Crown or Parliament in England or Great Britain, but policy undoubtedly unintentionally accelerated that process (people fleeing the Civil War or religious persecution, etc.) I've always heard the major difference between the English and French colonies was that the French colonies were still under French law (for taxation and religious purposes etc.) whereas the English colonies weren't, so the relative religious freedom and lack of much taxation was a big incentive for colonists to come to the English colonies (and not just from England, of course; vide the Waves of Germanna).

LSCatilina said:

My point exactly : English settlement wasn't about royal impulsion, and it was let more or less as such, when French colonial policy was all about royal impulsion and not only in North America but elsewhere as well.


While it played, it's not the only factor : New France was largely built on maniorial structures, dominated by a mercantilist policy.

New France was not doomed to export raw materials, it was a concious political choice that it would remain as such : the colony wasn't to be an economical rival to the metropole.

Click to expand...

I think we agree on this point. Nevertheless, I think that you're taking for granted that a French colony somewhere else would strictly follow this same merchantilistic pattern. I don't know. A semi-autonomous Huguenot colony would probably want the same liberties that the Pilgrims had. And, let's face it, Canada and Louisiana are just too isolated and unattractive to be the hotspot of a thriving "refugee" colony. A good example is the failure of the initial idealistic settlement of the Carolinas and Georgia.

LSCatilina said:

But there was more land : you had an expansion over Great Lakes and Ohio valley that was simply not used as for huge settlement in face of both political choices and basic limitations when it came to manpower.

Click to expand...

Normally, the hinterland is only settled when we have enought people by the coast. The most important trade routes were oceanic back then. The US only marched west when they had plenty of people by the coast.

LSCatilina said:

I strongly disagree : Cotton Gin allowed cotton plantation to boom even more than it did before, and plantation economy in North America was firmly established long before it went mechanised.

Click to expand...

Tobacco was already a thing, true. But mostly in Virginia. The Carolinas and Georgia plantations, unhealthy swamps just like Lousiana, had a hard time to thrive before the Cotton Gin.

Lampiao said:

Nevertheless, I think that you're taking for granted that a French colony somewhere else would strictly follow this same merchantilistic pattern.

Click to expand...

Strictly? No. But unless a PoD involving different politics and ideological priorities in France, giving how these generally involved the whole colonial policy, I think mercantilist priorities would still dominate.

I don't know. A semi-autonomous Huguenot colony would probably want the same liberties that the Pilgrims had.

Click to expand...

Thing is, a Hugenot colony is basically unthinkable for any reckognizable Valois or Bourbon France.
Religious question in France took a different turn than in England : while English sovereigns usually had to compromise or even protected religious groups depending on a balance game; it was much more tied to factionalism and late feudal elements.

A Huguenot colony would be seen not unlike than what existed at La Rochelle : an obstacle and an attack on royal power? It could be tolerated, for a time, but not accepted and certainly not on a too far places for that it would be efficiently controlled.

Jean-Francois Roberval could pull a tentative, not because he was a Protestant, but because he was a man of the king. Would it not have been, it would have meant no ressources.

Tobacco was already a thing, true. But mostly in Virginia. The Carolinas and Georgia plantations, unhealthy swamps just like Lousiana, had a hard time to thrive before the Cotton Gin.

Click to expand...

We were talking about Lousiana as the whole region tough, which included most of the Mississipi basin.
As Great Dismal Swamp isn't the basic feature of all southern-eastern cost, neither the represent the whole of Lower Louisiane.
Northern Louisiana, Northern Mississipi and Arkansas are viable for a plantation economy, on this regard.

Now it would certainly not being a booming economy, especially in face of prosperous Caribbeans : but, and that's the interesting point, with a mercantilist take on Caribbean economy and with a more sound policy on this regard, Lousiane can turn as sort of a continental Haiti, and then (trough mecanisation) develop from such base.

Again, not a recipe for French dominating North America (for several reasons, some you raised, I don't think that's really possible without really important changes, in America and in Europe), but for something maybe more akin to Spanish and Portuguese cultural spheres in South America IOTL.

LSCatilina said:

Strictly? No. But unless a PoD involving different politics and ideological priorities in France, giving how these generally involved the whole colonial policy, I think mercantilist priorities would still dominate.

Click to expand...

When I first read this thread, I assumed that the PoD was supposed to be a political/ideological change in the French metropole which enabled policies which in turn caused their colonies to be more successful.

I guess I for one am more interested in seeing what happens to these French colonies once they become dominant than in whether a geographic or political PoD is more likely to make them dominant. Like suppose the French Wars of Religion go differently so that the Edict of Nantes becomes a principle which is core to French identity rather than a compromise necessary to end the war: thus, Huguenots are seen as just as loyal and just as French as Catholic French subjects. But, there still is enough discrimination against Huguenots that they look for somewhere better to go, and a concerted effort is made to settle them in the colonies.

Although, still I'm focusing what I'm writing on the PoD, and I'm really more interested in wild speculation about how a French-Dominated North America could develop. For example, if settlement still begins in the St. Lawrence valley and spreads to the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes, could we get an Amerique (I don't want to use 'America') which is more inland-focused rather than coastal focused? What would be the priorities of such an Amerique, once it gains independence from France? etc.

telynk said:

Like suppose the French Wars of Religion go differently so that the Edict of Nantes becomes a principle which is core to French identity rather than a compromise necessary to end the war: thus, Huguenots are seen as just as loyal and just as French as Catholic French subjects.

Click to expand...

It would take a long length to devellop it, but allow me to summarize it without too much details : it would ask a really different late feudal take on royal power.
A very large part of Valois inner policy was to curb nobiliar power, regardless from where it come : in French Wars of Religion, this political aspect was omnipresent (not to say that religion didn't played a major role of course) and was the continuation of the XVth/XVIth fights.

Furthermore, giving that their legitimacy importantly come from the sacre (that had a religious, ritual importance than English coronation didn't have), they couldn't get rid of the catholic legitimacy easily, as Henri of Navarre eventually understood.

If Protestantism wasn't seen as an existential threat for both royal power and its legitimacy...Maybe.
But you'd need to deal with these first, and that's not going to be a piece of cake.

But, there still is enough discrimination against Huguenots that they look for somewhere better to go, and a concerted effort is made to settle them in the colonies.

Click to expand...

Giving the monopoly over exploration and settlement, as a basic feature, of the royal power...It seems a bit contradictory.
If the royal power is weak enough to allow such maritime adventures on a large scale, it would certianly be weak enough to undergo large pesecution and it would certainly rather devolve into civil war, giving the political structures of French protestantism.

That's, of course, not dwelling too much about the demographies of French Protestantism (more of an hinterland population, with exceptions as in Normandy, really tied to dynastical/political ensembles, and in fairly reduced numbers).

Some of you are giving far too much importance to the religious criterion. This is a british-centered or WASP-centered bias.

First of all there was a huguenot colonization attempt sponsored by the french kingdom. It took place in the bay of the future Rio de Janeiro and lasted 12 years before it was destroyed by the portuguese.

Second and more important, the spanish did not send their moriscos to the Americas and it did not prevent them from sending many settlers in the Americas.

So the point was incentives. The french crown did not offer enough incentives or did not force people to settle there. That's the difference between France and Britain or Spain or Portugal.

Matteo said:

Some of you are giving far too much importance to the religious criterion. This is a british-centered or WASP-centered bias.

First of all there was a huguenot colonization attempt sponsored by the french kingdom. It took place in the bay of the future Rio de Janeiro and lasted 12 years before it was destroyed by the portuguese.

Second and more important, the spanish did not send their moriscos to the Americas and it did not prevent them from sending many settlers in the Americas.

So the point was incentives. The french crown did not offer enough incentives or did not force people to settle there. That's the difference between France and Britain or Spain or Portugal.

Click to expand...

It's not just that, it's also that the french people for whatever reason just didn't wanna move. With all the other factors it didn't really matter much in the Quebec colonization but in the case of Algeria the french had to attract almost half the pied-noirs from Spain and Italy.

England on the other hand was CHOCK FULL of people who wanted to get out of there for whatever reason.

For all sorts of reasons, this is really unlikely for "France as we know it"

Emperor Norton I said:

The history of the OTL is one wherein the English and later British won the war (literal and figurative) for supremacy in North America against the French. While the French lost territory through war, they had also failed to properly exploit their North American holdings in comparison to England/Britain. They were underpopulated and underutilized. This was one of the reasons Louisiana was sold to the United States. It was a vast, rich territory which only had value to the French because of France's Caribbean colonies, which it lost to rebellion. And as a result, North America is controlled by two nations which are descended from the United Kingdom and span from sea to shining sea --- other than Mexico.

What if the situation were different? What if it were the French that had been successful on the continent, and created strong, culturally French colonies which sidelined and possibly booted out the English? This does not mean France controls the continent forever, but that any subsequent nation(s) would be derived from the French in the same way that the United States and Canada are descended from and still have cultural, societal, legal, governmental connections to Britain and England.

Click to expand...

For all sorts of reasons, this is really unlikely for "France as we know it" at any reasonable departure point between (say) 1600 and 1800 (to make it a nice round couple of centuries).

It is worth noting, yet again, that France is a continental power in Europe, meaning that France's elites always have to be aware of and planning ahead for what their neighbors in Europe - whether Hapsburg/Spain or Hohenzollern Germany, or whoever - are up to, and spare/disposable resources (population, money, time, etc.) have to be used to address those strategic issues first, last, and always.

England/Britain, with the minor issue(s) of the Scots and Irish, never has had to face that issue in modern history, and equally did not have to do so in 1600-1800. Navies cost money and population, but not in the way that armies do...

So yes, geography mattered hugely in the "British or French influence in North America question" - I'd argue it was the geography in Europe as much or more so than where the various colonies plunked down in North America, and where their population was drawn from...

The Channel is an excellent moat.

And anti-tank ditch.

The Moselle, not so much.

Best,

I'm thinking it was the food...

MorningDew said:

It's not just that, it's also that the french people for whatever reason just didn't wanna move. With all the other factors it didn't really matter much in the Quebec colonization but in the case of Algeria the french had to attract almost half the pied-noirs from Spain and Italy.

England on the other hand was CHOCK FULL of people who wanted to get out of there for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking it was the food...in both cases.

Best,

For France to have dominated North America, the settlement would have had to have begun much earlier, allowing natural growth to have a large enough French population to evict any foreign interlopers. As mentioned above, France was unique in that very few French emigrated overseas. French peasants seemed to have a much more secure position than their European counterparts. The most attractive place for French immigration (like British) was the West Indies which were considered much wealthier and offering greater opportunities than North America.

Even in the 19th century French emigration rarely exceeded 10,000 per year, with most emigrants being middle and upper-middle class businessmen emigrating for business reasons to Latin America, the U.S. and Egypt. Even most of the French who made their way to the Colonial Empire tended to be administrators, outnumbered by the aggregate of Spaniards, Italians and Maltese in North Africa and Syrians and Lebanese in West Africa.