Canada Captured Quickly, Colonials Crave Control?

Yes, I tried to alliterate the title best I could. Shut up. :p

The conquest of Canada was at a rather pivotal moment for the English colonies. The original Cisappalachian homeland-the 'thirteen colonies' originally settled by Englishmen (and the Dutch)-were now very populated and economically prosperous by colonial and even some European demographic standards. Simply put, the colonists felt confident they didn't need Britain over and fleecing them, revolted, and the rest is history.

Now there was many a time New France had or could have been captured by Britain earlier on through the 17th-18th centuries...1632, 1690, 1746, etc. Notably, however, the English colonies are much younger, less prosperous/getting off the ground, and less populated at these points.

Since the earlier back the better a chance you can see Canada pull a New York and be assimilated, how would the English colonials feel politically with an entire 'continent' to themselves that much sooner (well, up to the Mississippi at least if 1763 is any indication, and Florida's not theirs yet, but who knows how much Britain could take further west and south with Quebec out of the way earlier)? Would they still feel some need to get autonomy now that there's no rival colonies close by and thus no need for 'defense'? Would Britain recognize the need to still send regulars to defend against the (proportionally stronger at the time) Amerindian tribes? Would the colonists still feel weak enough in trade and population to want the mother country over them or feel personally close to the motherland in familial/nationalistic ties since the biggest mass English migration to North America was still going on in all the 17th and early 18th century (and thus the concept of England as home is still a very real aspect in most colonists' minds)?

Yet another specific colonial question, but I'm quite interested in hearing your opinions.
 
Top