Challenge: Make the United States a French-speaking nation.

I'm not an expert in American history, that's why I can't think of a plausible POD for that. Any ideas? Bonus points if les Etats-Unis d'Amérique occupy at least all the OTL mainland territory of the US.
 
I'm not an expert in American history, that's why I can't think of a plausible POD for that. Any ideas? Bonus points if les Etats-Unis d'Amérique occupy at least all the OTL mainland territory of the US.
That would require a POD at the latest in the mid 17th century, preferably sooner, to give the French a shot at being quicker than the English in colonising NA. Problem is you'd need to get the French willing to massively emigrate as well, not something they have ever done in OTL. Another thing is that such a massive change would make North America completely unrecognisable from OTL, whatever the French colonies end up being called at independence (which might be anywhere between 1750-1900) it won't be les États-Unis d'Amerique and neither will it's culture look like the USA of OTL.
 
So basically, let Napoleon lose early and gamble much of France away to Prussia ... ?

I don't think that Prussia in this timeframe is capable of seizing too much of France under most plausible scenarios, nor is it likely to seek to ruin france save unusual circumstances (such as a desire for revenge... triggered by Napoleon's OTL successes:eek:).

Maybe the revolution implodes and is militarily crushed during the reign of terror (or the impending doom brings about a comparable regime). Might this work, or is it still too late?
 

Skokie

Banned
Some ideas for getting around the perennial No Frenchman Will Emigrate problem:

*Instead of more Frenchmen, how about a horrible plague that takes out New England and/or Virginia? :D

*Instead of more Frenchmen, how about more non-French immigrants who are then integrated into French culture and more intermarriage with natives and Africans?

*Allow Protestant Frenchmen to migrate but keep them away and/or angry with the nearby large population of Protestants to the south.
 
*Allow Protestant Frenchmen to migrate but keep them away and/or angry with the nearby large population of Protestants to the south.

This got me thinking...

IOTL, the Huguenots were some of the most productive members of French society; that extended to the colonial sphere, as a lot of the fledgling French colonies in North America were founded by them. Now, the edict of Fontainebleau IOTL was an unmitigated disaster for France. But what if Louis manages to reconciles his ideal vision of France with a little bit of practicality. What if, instead of scattering the Huguenots to the wind (and his enemies), he encourages them to emigrate to North America? Not all will go, but a lot presumably will, and if they set up shop at this stage we could see a very well-developed Nouvelle France by the mid-18th century.
 
Isn't one reason for massive emigration to America by the English due to the enclosure movement in Tudor Times that displaced many rural laborers and caused them emigrate to the cities? Is it possible we could see some small scale movement like that in France during the late Valois dynasty? Certainly not with wool, but with some other product that is more profitable and requires less laborers? Of course the peasants in France were often tied to their lord, but if he longer needs them, they might be encourage to find work else where. If some sort of low-scale movement like that happens in France, such as in the Loire Valley, we could see a population of Frenchmen eager to populate the French colonies founded by Henri IV?
 
So basically, let Napoleon lose early and gamble much of France away to Prussia ... ?

By the age of Napoleon, the USA was both independent and had far too large an English-speaking population to be culturally assimilated into the Francophone community. You'd need a POD before 1750, possibly before a generation earlier, to pull this off IMO.
 
We can have the French somehow won the French and Indian Wars and took the British possessions in North America. After that, the burden of the war forced the French to tax more on the North American colonies. Then cue rebellion and the rest is anyone's guess.
 
We can have the French somehow won the French and Indian Wars and took the British possessions in North America. After that, the burden of the war forced the French to tax more on the North American colonies. Then cue rebellion and the rest is anyone's guess.

I think such a quick POD-to-rebellion period would mean that English would almost certainly be the USA's language. I can't see a Francophone USA happening without several decades to make French a culturally prominent language - maybe not cultural assimilation of the English by the French but it would need time to get to a stage where French is spoken fluently by everyone in government as the language of power, and everywhere down to at least the smaller towns of the country had a significant enough French-speaking populace as to ensure that the population couldn't force English to be used as the language of the masses.
 

Glen

Moderator
Actually, one might consider a greater defeat of the French in 1763....

Or at least a shift in victories. Have the British do much better in the Caribbean, and a bit worse on the North American continent, such that the French lose all their valuable possessions in the Caribbean (and throw in Guiana as the icing on the cake), but retain their North American possessions (including Canada, Louisiana, and everything between the Mississippi and Appalachians). Have the displaced French move to Louisiana and Canada. That would make for a good start.
 

Glen

Moderator
Actually, one might consider a greater defeat of the French in 1763....

Or at least a shift in victories. Have the British do much better in the Caribbean, and a bit worse on the North American continent, such that the French lose all their valuable possessions in the Caribbean (and throw in Guiana as the icing on the cake), but retain their North American possessions (including Canada, Louisiana, and everything between the Mississippi and Appalachians). Have the displaced French move to Louisiana and Canada. That would make for a good start.

Next, have the British shut off immigration to the mainland colonies in order to make them more defensible and to bolster immigration to their new Caribbean possessions. Being cut off at the Appalachians and not allowed to bring in more population will PO the remaining Americans.
 

Glen

Moderator
Next, have the British shut off immigration to the mainland colonies in order to make them more defensible and to bolster immigration to their new Caribbean possessions. Being cut off at the Appalachians and not allowed to bring in more population will PO the remaining Americans.

Have a parallel version of the American Revolutionary War break out, with France gaining the Floridas, but with the Revolutionaries being forced out of the South and Mid-Atlantic. New England remains as the French Protectorate of the United States of America, which includes French Canada (to strengthen it against British incursions. Washington, Jefferson, et al are simmering in New England.

Outbreak of the French Revolution, with the French Protectorate of the United States of America declaring for the Revolution (some loyalist rebellion in OTL Quebec put down). The British colonies (much more depopulated compared to OTL) also rise in rebellion in the Second American Revolutionary War which sort of rolls into the Napoleonic Wars (if you still have Napoleon). The rest of the former 13 Colonies join the United States of America, which is bilingual in French and English. America is more lenient when it comes to revolutionary zeal, so waves of immigrants from France during this time, first Loyalists, then Moderates, then the architects of the Reign of Terror, and finally when Napoleon (if you still have him) falls, Napoleonists. Net result is that you have a USA that is predominantly Francophone (though with a strong English element so more like OTL Canada in that respect, just reversed), which is well on its way to gaining roughly the borders of OTL USA AND Canada combined.

Holy Francophone USA Wank!:eek:;):D:cool:
 
I'm not sure. French protectorate or not, I just don't see it without one thing: major French immigration into the heartlands of the USA. Otherwise, somewhere down the line someone in government is going to say "We may be a French protectorate (this may not even be a viable reason if the French have already handed over their protectorate to the new USA) but why are we speaking French when everyone speaks English? It would cause massive chaos to force everyone to switch to French and it would disrupt the government as it would eliminate many potentially influential and skillful politicians from joining the government because they aren't French-fluent. In addition, I think on the back of a revolution against a European colonial power over restrictions placed upon them there won't be much support among the average Americans for a new initiative to place a restriction switching the common tongue to another European language, especially if it's just to appease a new protector who the colonists (probably misguidedly) don't believe that they need. The first party to propose canning the French thing would win massive support.

To me, I just don't see how this could possibly be done without French cultural integration all across the USA, if not cultural assimilation of the USA before the official language changes. The only other way is if the language is forced upon them by a Francophone military oppressor...not very likely. 1763 is just too late IMO.
 

Glen

Moderator
I'm not sure. French protectorate or not, I just don't see it without one thing: major French immigration into the heartlands of the USA. Otherwise, somewhere down the line someone in government is going to say "We may be a French protectorate (this may not even be a viable reason if the French have already handed over their protectorate to the new USA) but why are we speaking French when everyone speaks English? It would cause massive chaos to force everyone to switch to French and it would disrupt the government as it would eliminate many potentially influential and skillful politicians from joining the government because they aren't French-fluent. In addition, I think on the back of a revolution against a European colonial power over restrictions placed upon them there won't be much support among the average Americans for a new initiative to place a restriction switching the common tongue to another European language, especially if it's just to appease a new protector who the colonists (probably misguidedly) don't believe that they need. The first party to propose canning the French thing would win massive support.

To me, I just don't see how this could possibly be done without French cultural integration all across the USA, if not cultural assimilation of the USA before the official language changes. The only other way is if the language is forced upon them by a Francophone military oppressor...not very likely. 1763 is just too late IMO.

I disagree that it is too late, just harder. My proposal implies greater French immigration and decreased English immigration for about 50 years, and then more bilingualism than outright conversion to French.

Based on what's asked, though, its going to be a low probability timeline no matter what we conjure up.
 

Skokie

Banned
I imagine if the French formed a large enough elite and a nascent English elite is denied certain privileges, you can get the population speaking French within a generation or two through intermarriage (sort of like what happened to the Dutch in New York).

I also had the idea of Jesuits (or their Enlightenment-secular equivalent) starting missions in the Appalachians where they abduct the children of English-speakers and bring them to special French-language orphanages. :D
 
Well, if you go back to the Middle Ages, you could get a long-term Anglo-French monarchy, in which the (at the time) numerically far superior French-speaking population drives the dominant language... :)

Bruce
 
Lets start in England. PoD: Arthur, Prince of Wales lives, marries Catherine of Aragon and she sires male heirs, while his brother Henry becomes a Catholic clergyman and is forgotten in history. No English Reformation means no Puritans for New England, No Catholic Maryland, and less upheaval in general for England. Yes, their is some Protestantism but even they find refuge in Scotland. Overall, less religious dissent means fewer colonists.

One of Arthur's daughters or granddaughters marries into the House of Valois. Her son, the King of France is much more willing to allow Huguenots to set up colonies in the New World.

As a result the French colonize not only The St Lawerence Basin (a Catholic stronghold) but also the what we think of as New England while the English settle Virginia south. New Sweden and New Netherland, perhaps with Iroqious allies last longer, but are eventually caught between France and England and conquered with New York going to France and Delaware going to Britian. Pennsylvania becomes the frontier/wilderness area. Eventually Louisiana is added as a French colony. Control of the waterways and good relations with the Native Americans means that English North America is hemmed in by the Appalachians, the French to the North, and the Spanish to the south.

Eventually, the English are conquered, but war taxes as well a more casual attitude torward authority mean that the French colonials feel alienated from the mother country. Eventually, they rebel successfully.

Because each province has differing customs, many features of the United States as we know it exist, for example, freedom of religion, speech, and originally strong 'States Rights'.

How does that sound.

All the Best,

Kerney
 
Top