AHC: French as a major language in the US

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

With a POD of whenever you want, have French become a major language (at least 10% of the Population speaking it) within the United States. No, Canada cannot be annexed. Nor Haiti.
 
With a POD of whenever you want, have French become a major language (at least 10% of the Population speaking it) within the United States. No, Canada cannot be annexed. Nor Haiti.

Let the French have a better colonial migration policy. French America would be higher population than New England. French wins NA war with Britain. French America absorbs New England and colonized the remaining NA.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
France does better in the revolutionary/napoleonic wars, Britain does worse at building a new empire after losing America. English does not supplant French as the most prestigious world language, and the language of diplomacy and culture. Educated Americans learn French in school, as do those who travel, or those with business contacts outside the Anglosphere, and in the *internet age an increasing number of Americans seek access to the larger international community on the French web.

Now, if you want it as a *native* language, that's a bit harder. :)
 
The easiest way to do this would be to simple have things go better for France post American Revolution (and on the flip side at least somewhat worse for Britain) so that French remains the premiere global language.

So stuff like keeping Germany divided, not rocking the European boat too much through massive conquest, more successful colonization of Africa/Asia/Oceania, establishing French as a popular language of business/education etc. in major markets such as Russia, China, South America, etc. while Britain has a bit less successful time at the whole Empire game.

As such it would certainly be easily to imagine at least 10% of Americans learning French well enough for business purposes or what have you. Of course, this wouldn't be native speaking which is what I assume you want.

To get 10%+ of the United States (or at least the geographical area) to speak French as their native language, I think you're gonna need pre-American Revolution pods, which also might not be what you want, but is probably your best bet without relying on annexing Canada/Haiti.

Scenario #1 - France puts a more serious effort in colonizing the lower Louisiana area, eventually spreading their efforts over to OTL states of Texas and Mississippi. Some time later after the "United States" splits from Great Britain, "Greater South" Louisiana joins the U.S. for some(?) reason. One agreement for joining though is that the territory will be allowed to use French as its preferred language in government/schools/etc. This allows French to flourish in this area despite English being the majority language.

Scenario #2. - France replaces Spain as the major colonizer of OTL Latin America, while England/Britain still colonizes the Eastern Coast of North America. Assuming that history follows a rough parallel to OTL at least in terms of territorial expansion/economic growth of Not United States, you can have a roughly same size English Speaking state that ends up becoming home to millions of French Speaking Latin American immigrants.
 
Last edited:
If there are more people in the Louisiana territory, maybe that could give you 10% of the population at the time. They will pretty quickly get assimilated and will probably stop speaking french.
 

Deleted member 67076

If there are more people in the Louisiana territory, maybe that could give you 10% of the population at the time. They will pretty quickly get assimilated and will probably stop speaking french.

Any way to slow that down or prevent that? French was a major prestige language and a few other groups managed to retain their language until after WWI like many German immigrant families.
 
Have massive French immigration,.perhaps as a result of more violent political transitions and/or repressive governments?

Still. 10% is a LOT.
 
With Richelieu allowing protestants to settle in North America there would have been a massive population, with the added benefit of a highly skilled workforce with a lot of money not going to other countries like the Netherland, Germany and the UK (or you know, time adequate equivalents).

By doing that you strengthen French positions in NA and weaken other countries.

Also, I always read when the US voted on which language to adopt, French lost to English by only one vote. Maybe that's something to dig?
 
With Richelieu allowing protestants to settle in North America there would have been a massive population, with the added benefit of a highly skilled workforce with a lot of money not going to other countries like the Netherland, Germany and the UK (or you know, time adequate equivalents).

By doing that you strengthen French positions in NA and weaken other countries.

Also, I always read when the US voted on which language to adopt, French lost to English by only one vote. Maybe that's something to dig?

French North America with a Hueguenot majority sounds like a recipe for an earlier American Revolution, so there would be a French speaking United States.
 
There are plenty of possible sources for a higher French-speaking population, including the Acadians, Huguenot immigrants, Quebecois immigrants in New England, Metis, Missouri French, and possibly French royalist immigration after the French Revolution (see the French Azilum scheme). The problem is that these groups have little in common with one another and will likely remain divided upon political, religious, racial, cultural, and class lines no matter how much you boost their populations.

The Missouri French are the most intriguing link, however, being right in the middle of everything. What if the Missouri French intermarried with the Native Americans and escaped slaves to create something of a Metis population in the Midwest? Something along the lines of the tri-racial isolates of OTL but bigger, less isolated, and French-speaking. The Metis in Canada absorbed plenty of Scotch-Irish pioneers so maybe this population could as well, and the Huguenots with them. A culture that constantly grows due to its racial openness but isn't absorbed into the larger society due to the racist attitudes of the majority. There are plenty of cases of this happening in American history, from the Louisiania Creoles, the Jersey Dutch, the Seminoles, and the various English-speaking tri-racial isolates such as the Melungeons, Red Bones, Black Feet, Brass Ankles, and Carmel Indians.
 
There are plenty of possible sources for a higher French-speaking population, including the Acadians, Huguenot immigrants, Quebecois immigrants in New England, Metis, Missouri French, and possibly French royalist immigration after the French Revolution (see the French Azilum scheme). The problem is that these groups have little in common with one another and will likely remain divided upon political, religious, racial, cultural, and class lines no matter how much you boost their populations.

The Missouri French are the most intriguing link, however, being right in the middle of everything. What if the Missouri French intermarried with the Native Americans and escaped slaves to create something of a Metis population in the Midwest? Something along the lines of the tri-racial isolates of OTL but bigger, less isolated, and French-speaking. The Metis in Canada absorbed plenty of Scotch-Irish pioneers so maybe this population could as well, and the Huguenots with them. A culture that constantly grows due to its racial openness but isn't absorbed into the larger society due to the racist attitudes of the majority. There are plenty of cases of this happening in American history, from the Louisiania Creoles, the Jersey Dutch, the Seminoles, and the various English-speaking tri-racial isolates such as the Melungeons, Red Bones, Black Feet, Brass Ankles, and Carmel Indians.

This would still amount to way less than ten percent of the US population, which was the challenge in the original post. (Once again, let me try to put what a large percentage that is in perspective: Spanish-speaking people are only about 12 percent of the US population today.)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If you reach back far enough you could get the result you seek-

I recommend Viriato's scenario as a starting point. He has earlier growth of the Quebecois population, that could lead to a much larger French ethnic imprint on the Mississippi watershed and New England if the English based on the east coast still end-up taking the land between the Alleghenies & Mississippi & there is an eventual independent American republic.

Reaching further back, if you reversed French and Spanish roles in the colonization of the Americas, Latin America is French speaking, not Spanish-speaking. And, assuming North America by the 20th century becomes an industrialized state called the United States, Estados Unidos, Etats Unis, Verenigde Staten, Enat Stader, Vereinigte Staaten, fornet stater, единое государство, 美国国家 or 米国-----well this state is likely to attract many French-speaking, racially "metis" Euro-Amerindian-African people north as immigrants.
 
It may be cheating a bit, but if you count creoles, then French is spoken by about 7% of the US today (4-5% of the population speaking French proper), so I think you might be able to do it by making Canada somehow more Francophone, and somehow encouraging more population along the borders than OTL - suddenly, cross-border immigration and work makes French practical as a second language and more frequent as a home language (which is already decently prevalent in upper New England and some parts of upper NY)
 
Rharris, I don't think reversing Spain/France is plausible :)

France had no reason at the time to launch itself in such a grand enterprise as our economy wasn't reliant on spice trade (at least not importation from afar). France is a fertile land at the crossroad of Europe, much easier to cultivate your land than to seek something else, we only came way later in the race. Then again, I can be wrong and please correct me if I am :)

The big divergence can be the 7 years war, when we lost Quebec (and India...). Keep Dupleix in place in India, French India stays a much stronger force. 7 years war, as we don't lose India, or at least since it resists much strongly, the British cannot force France to cede its colonies.

Quebec stays a French region and French expansion continues from there. Then you're very much in French wank territory, not that I mind :D
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Rharris, I don't think reversing Spain/France is plausible

France had no reason at the time to launch itself in such a grand enterprise as our economy wasn't reliant on spice trade (at least not importation from afar). France is a fertile land at the crossroad of Europe, much easier to cultivate your land than to seek something else, we only came way later in the race. Then again, I can be wrong and please correct me if I am

It may not be likely, but the Columbus brothers appealed for French assistance a couple time. I don't think Spain was particularly reliant on the spice trade either. Spain actually had a decent amount of fertility and accounted for a majority of Habsburg tax revenue up through the 1560s (more so than American gold and silver).

I think French trans-atlantic discovery is possible both as a royal project and due to Breton fishing interests.

If the French find the gold of the Caribbean first, and then Mexico, they have a decent chance of conquering it.

Spain did have a society producing more of the conquistador type, but American gold could be a great draw to adventurous frenchmen.

If the French conquer Mexico as well, the possibilities for wealth and exploitation are much greater than in Canada, and this will probably attract more French migrants than cold Canada. Granted, probably nowhere near as many Frenchman would move as Spanish, Portuguese or English did in our timeline, but enough to become the elite, and enough to impose francophonie on much of the amerindian and mixed race population.

The big divergence can be the 7 years war, when we lost Quebec (and India...). Keep Dupleix in place in India, French India stays a much stronger force. 7 years war, as we don't lose India, or at least since it resists much strongly, the British cannot force France to cede its colonies.

This is a plausible alternate history scenario, but I don't know how winning in India ensures survival in North America all by itself. But yes, 18th century points of divergence have possibilities, although not as dramatic as early ones.
 
Top