Earlier US Independence

decker

My Universal Republic alternate timeline (see my webpage) is supposed to have a POD during the French and Indian Wars, where an earlier US Independence mouvement changes everything :

France keeps the whole of New France and a smaller US (North American Federation is born).

amn1764.jpg


The problem is that I have never thought of reasons that could make this US Independent mouvement start in the 1750-60s. Nomore have I thought of it as pro-French !

Has anybody got any ideas for a simple explaination, I came up with a complicated one yesterday :

At the time of the French and Indian war in our time line, American British colonists concidered the French as an enemy.
Some of the reasons I guess were that French were Roman-Catholics, and that they mainly met troops and not much common folk to trade with.

I was thinking that if instead they met French Huguenots in large settlements, they would identify them as neighboors rather than enemies.
And in case they wanted to rebel against England, they would first make sure these French could back them up.

That's why I could set a POD in the year 1685, the Fontainbleau Edict changes : instead of banning protestantism from France once again (which lead to massive migration to other countries), it could open migration to the Huguenots if they settled in the Niagara / Ohio region.

We could count on about 1,000,000 French protestants in a few decades as they were pushed around in France. Leading to a real French presence in New France. Which could by doing free trade make the northern british american colonies split earlier after say a British parliement 'French Fur Ban Act' in the 1750s, leading to rebelion in the 1760s.
 

decker

Very interesting the bio of this D. Kirke, but he seemed really anti-french, since I'm looking for a way to have France help a rebelion in the 1760s to get the northern US colonies indepedent earlier, I don't think he fits the job.

It is true that the more I look at the time period it seems very unlikely, but I don't mind having butterflies start tornados, so in the end it just happened in my ATL.

But again interesting bio, thanks.

PS : I do believe that a France that has large settlements in Ohio, would prefer to help a US independence even more, and hope to make it a puppet, than to leave the cost in the hands of the hereditary ennemy.
 

danwild6

Well I believe there is another possibility. In 1643 the New England colonies of Massachusetts bay, Plymouth, New Haven and Connecticut joined together to form the New England Confederation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Confederation

In OTL while being initially very successful the union eventually fell into disuse. One of the main reasons was reluctance of Massachusetts to support an attack on New Amsterdam in 1654 during the first Anglo-Dutch War and another was the forced merger between New Haven and Connecticut.

POD 1656- Seeking to resolve the problems regarding the dominance of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the confederation. The Constitution of the Confederation is amended to include a bicameral legislative body and several executive offices including a Bank of New England and an Agent of the Marine, Agent of Indians.

In 1686 King James II created the Dominion of New England as a way to increase royal authority over New England. In OTL the New Englanders reluctantly accepted this... at first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_England

In 1689 following the Glorious Revolution the New England Dominion and its Governor Edmund Andros were overthrown.

After the successful rebellion Leisler's Congress was convened in New York to coordinate the defense of the colonies at the beginning of King William's War.

http://www.bartleby.com/171/6.html
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Faeelin said:
I don't know why, but I really like that map.
Click to expand...

Decker has recently made his name in the map thread for coming out of nowhere with excellent maps.

I don't think an American independence movement in the Seven Years' War is likely. The French (and the Spanish) were still too much of a bogeyman. If you want an American independence movement in the 1750s, you need to have the wars in the 1740s or earlier result in bigger French defeats - for example, perhaps the Treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle could leave Louisbourg in British/American hands rather than handing it back to France. Or, to go back earlier, there were attempts to take Quebec during the War of the Grand Alliance and the War of the Spanish Succession (that's King William's War and Queen Anne's War from an American perspective). If those were successful, there's no French presence with Indian allies to worry about, therefore less incentive for the Americans to see British protection as necessary.
 

Othniel

The French, seeing the density of the British colonies may force independance upon them after the French win the Seven Years War, or the series of the intercolonial conflicts. (sometimes called the second 100 years war...) May of them were beginning to show signs of self-suffience during this period...
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Othniel said:
The French, seeing the density of the British colonies may force independance upon them after the French win the Seven Years War, or the series of the intercolonial conflicts. (sometimes called the second 100 years war...) May of them were beginning to show signs of self-suffience during this period...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the idea would occur to the French on their own (well, perhaps it might through Montcalm or someone, but I don't think Paris took much notice of his opinion). You'd have to have some American intellectuals appeal to the French after the war was lost, and that doesn't seem likely while Louis XV still sits on the throne.

Furthermore, after the war was lost, wouldn't the Americans need British protection more than ever? Even if the French set up a puppet independent America (perhaps under Charles Edward Stuart), then paradoxically this might preserve loyalist sentiment in America longer than OTL, leading to a reunification after Britain defeats France in another eventual war.
 

danwild6

William Phips attacked Quebec in 1690. His expedition was bungled from the start, but if you turn a few things he might have just taken Quebec.

In OTL there was supposed to be a two pronged attack on New France. One column advancing up the war road to Montreal while Phips attacked from a naval flotilla on the St. Lawrence. However, the column from New York never really materialized. Schuyler was able to mount a series of raids, but was never able to mount a serious threat.

Another possibility would involve Phips getting accurate intelligence concerning the food supply of Quebec, which was rather serious. Feinting a siege my have forced Frontenac's hand.
 

decker

to Dan1988 : True my maps usually mix ATL and OTL borders, the OTL ones are usually out of their time.
I simply don't change borders that I'm not interested in changing, or that I like where they are.
I suppose it's because I'm more interested in seing how funny maps look than the details in how they got there (shame on me) !

to Faeelin : Thanks, it's hand drawn + scanned + colored + textures (wood and paper in this case) with paint shop pro (now corel owned)

to Thande : These few days, I have been surprised to have compliments on the visual effects of my maps, from many people, including the ones that made, what appeared to me as, the most stuning maps I could find in the Map Thread III ! Note that the maps I've sent have been siting on my website for 4-5 years !

to danwild6 : Interesting this New England Confederation angle, what if the colonies had tried some form of mild autonomy which would have been ended by the british in a blood bath, and were then waiting for a way to get independent, and seized the time when New French was at war to tie their fate with the former enemy ? This is even compatible with my first idea.

to All : Note that I'm not very enthousiast with the French earlier defeat angle because the whole point of this 'earlier US independence' is to have France keep New France, so it's territory then becomes part of the 'Universal Republic' after my alternate 'French Revolution/Napoleonic Era'.

(Universal Republic is a steampunk ATL, centered on republicanism instead of victorianism (as most steampunk uchronias are), it's built on the concept that Lafayette conquered Europe instead of Napoleon, and makes it a successfull unified federal state which includes most of OTL USA. Note that this republicanism is also tainted with dystopia thus the current date 1884 as you can see on my website).
 
Last edited:

danwild6

Another possibility is the issue of colonial neutrality. In 1689 at the outbreak of King William's War the American colonies asked William to allow the colonies to remain neutral(similarly to what happened during the first Anglo-Dutch War). In OTL King William refused.

POD after King William's refusal King Louis XIV seeing an opportunity to divide the American Colonies from Britain sends an emissary to America offering what in todays terminology would be called an non-aggression pact in exchange for the like. This could lead to a major rift between Britain and America leading ultimately to an earlier independence for a least some of the American colonies.
 

decker

danwild6 said:
Another possibility is the issue of colonial neutrality. In 1689 at the outbreak of King William's War the American colonies asked William to allow the colonies to remain neutral(similarly to what happened during the first Anglo-Dutch War). In OTL King William refused.

POD after King William's refusal King Louis XIV seeing an opportunity to divide the American Colonies from Britain sends an emissary to America offering what in todays terminology would be called an non-aggression pact in exchange for the like. This could lead to a major rift between Britain and America leading ultimately to an earlier independence for a least some of the American colonies.
Click to expand...

Good idea and this could also be a reason for the british to brutalize the colonies (if they had refused to participate in an king's war). By executing a few leaders they would sow the seeds of rebellion.
 

wkwillis

More Americans faster. Say, the starving Jamestown colony from the first expedition was rescued by supplies from Bermuda instead of being overwhelmed with immigrants. Most of the second expedition's colonists shipwrecked on Bermuda stay there because conditions are good (as they wanted to in OTL), and the shipwreck is not as salvagable as in OTL.
A smaller boat shows up later at Jamestown with fewer people to feed, then a second boat from Bermuda shows up with food, and then a third. The mass starvation doesn't happen and Virginia at least gets off to a rousing start.
Then Bermuda succors the later Pilgrim colony and reduces their death rate to considerably less than OTLs 50%.
More Americans means we can win a war of independence earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top