Earlier English Colonization of Americas, effects

Inspired by the Higher Global Population thread, where this idea started to form for me.

For whatever reason, let's imagine if conditions were right in Elizabethan England to start establishing colonies on the east coast of America 70 years earlier than OTL. A mix of Puritans and Catholics fleeing religious persecution and regular entrepreneurs creates a small but rapidly growing series of colonies like we saw IOTL. A couple hundred people at first go, and then there's a trickle of a couple thousand per year eventually. A drop in the bucket for England, as many of these people might have died in war or other circumstances back home anyways and they have plenty more. But they have high birth rates like most settler colonies, and the population abroad begins to take off.

More people means more taxes and more resources. England starts paying more and more attention to the colonies, even being willing to fight wars to secure land there like that part of the Seven Years War IOTL. Natives get an even worse deal than OTL as though they fight back there are far more people who marginalize them earlier.

Let's say by 1700 English America has achieved similar population levels to 1776 in 1700- 2 million.

1700- 2,000,000
1750- 8,968,067

By 1750, they are already pulling far ahead, even ahead of Britain. With such a large population, we can assume they've spread to cover much of the Midwest, Mississippi watershed, Eastern Canada as well as the East Coast.

1800- 40,213,112

At this point we can begin to lower growth rates, from where I had it (with immigration and birth rates, growth was 35% every ten years, which is pretty consistent with OTL) to a smaller number, to account for the fact that immigration will be far less significant and birth rates will probably decline a little from their highs- perhaps a 25% growth rate instead (in comparison, the United States at this period IOTL had about a little over a 30% growth rate, so this is actually a conservative estimate:

1850- 122,720,679

Lowering it again to 18%, for similar reasons. By this point English America will probably cover just about all of modern U.S and Canada. If it is apart of Britain, it will be the center of the Empire. If not, it could either be a huge Empire of its own or several powerful States.

1900- 280,755,185

That's right, population would be at the same level as they were around the end of the 20th century, but this time at the beginning of it. There's certainly enough agriculture in the region to support it, though it will mean the area is not as much of a food exporter.

At this time we will shift over to a little higher than the British growth rate at this time, 13%, because though the two would be similarly developed the Brits had a lot of colonization impeding growth. Again, this is a conservative estimate.

1950- 517,273,229

By 1950, English American population is similar to that of China, and will remain on that trajectory. And why not? Assuming roughly U.S+Canada, the Americans will have more land, and more arable land, than the Chinese, more waterways and coasts, and a far larger economy and trade.

2017- roughly 902,000,000.

Obviously this will have HUGE effects on pretty much everything. In just English North America, you now have an Europe-sized entity population wise, all speaking English. The Nation(s) of this region will be hugely important on the world stage. Perhaps the Appalachian regions are even the first ones to make strides towards industrialization! Perhaps slavery is not established in the colonies, and remains mostly in the Caribbean and South America.

Is it even possible for such a large entity to stay together with England, even if it's ruled from an alt Boston, New York or New Orleands? If so, could anyone seriously challenge it with an untouched homeland like they have?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 97083

Interesting scenario. The Thirteen Colonies won't be Puritan in the exact same way (not just because early Catholics come along but also because Puritanism itself will have a different form) and the whole enlightenment would be slightly different, so the culture would diverge a lot from OTL over centuries.
 
I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume a US settled 70 years earlier than OTL would result in current day population nearing a billion. Not that the US couldn't have ever approached those numbers but it'd have taken a lot more than just that earlier initial settlement date.
 
I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume a US settled 70 years earlier than OTL would result in current day population nearing a billion. Not that the US couldn't have ever approached those numbers but it'd have taken a lot more than just that earlier initial settlement date.
Why, exactly? Like I said, not only does this assume lower birth rates than the U.S had at the same population IOTL, it also assumes no immigration waves like came IOTL, no baby booms or other major boosts in population after industrialization, and a slowdown of birthrates more severe than IOTL once sufficiently developed. It first assumes standard growth for a settler colony, and eventually transitions to a similar growth rate of a developed European country at the time. It is a Conservative estimate?

What factors prevent the area from reaching nearly a billion population, when they have more natural resources than an even more populated country, China? What on earth is there to constrain the population in this scenario, especially considering war or poverty will most likely ultimately result in it growing quicker?

Just because something is drastically different from OTL, does not make it unreasonable. And small differences in statistics can make a very powerful force over time.
 

Deleted member 97083

What on earth is there to constrain the population in this scenario, especially considering war or poverty will most likely ultimately result in it growing quicker?
War and poverty doesn't increase population growth, it's just that countries with denser population tend to have more war and poverty. Correlation but not causation.

Just because something is drastically different from OTL, does not make it unreasonable. And small differences in statistics can make a very powerful force over time.
Well, show your calculations, including each year with percentage growth rate.
 
War and poverty doesn't increase population growth, it's just that countries with denser population tend to have more war and poverty. Correlation but not causation.
You're right and wrong. War and poverty can led to higher growth rates, after the war and because of what poverty can lead to (lack of education, especially for women, poorer family planning and less birth control).

Well, show your calculations, including each year with percentage growth rate.
I did in my OP, with growth rates by every 10 years because this is how most censuses record things IOTL.
 
Top