English Canada/French Carolina: A Timeline

So I've lost interest in my other two timelines, so what else to do but start a new one?
So, during the Anglo-French War of 1627-29, English privateer David Kirke captured the French colony of Québec. However, it just happened to be after the end of the war, so the colony was returned in the peace treaty. In this timeline, it is captured a year earlier, and Canada + Acadia are given to the English in the peace terms, thus driving the French from the North American mainland 140 years earlier than OTL. Now, France did win the war in Europe, so the French being driven from North America is somewhat unrealistic, but let's work with it. The English now had the colonies of Virginia, New England, Acadia and Canada, but the Deep South remained unsettled, so might the French colonize that? Would the French go for a more Asia-focused colonial strategy, colonizing South Africa in place of the Dutch? With more North American colonies, would the British have less colonies in India? I've gotta work it out, and I'd love suggestions for this upcoming TL. Hopefully I don't lose the motivation to do it like I did with the last two.
 
One thing you might want to look at is the relationship between the English and the colonists. Until the Seven Year’s War the Americans needed the British for protection. Now with their largest threat gone you could see confederation of independence movements develop earlier, especially if something like the English Civil War happens.
 
So, after losing Canada and Acadia to the British in 1628, France has a few options for colonization:
The South (The Carolinas and Georgia) were still uncolonized up until the late 17th century, and the French had established settlements their in OTL (Charlesfort, Fort Caroline in Florida etc.). However, this area is close to Spanish Florida, and the Spanish had destroyed Fort Caroline and slaughtered all the French Huguenot colonists, so the French would have concerns about colonizing so close to the Spanish. In addition, the entire coast of the Southeast is basically just one giant mosquito-filled swamp, which is no place to build a colony, and the mortality rates IOTL were much higher here than further north (which is now all English except for New Amsterdam which is Dutch and New Sweden which is Swedish). However, you could just import tons of African slaves (who are immune to tropical diseases) and grow ca$h crop$, which is what happened there IOTL with the English and what would likely happen here as well.

Alternatively, the French could pursue a more Asian-focused strategy, going more for trade with India, China and Southeast Asia while colonizing the Cape of Good Hope as a waystation (similar to what the Dutch did IOTL). The French have until 1652 to colonize the Cape (1652 is when the Dutch founded Cape Town). The climate of the Cape is a Mediterranean Climate not unlike that of Provence, and tropical diseases aren't present there. However, the voyage to the Cape takes several months and crosses the equator, which would make it a long and uncomfortable journey. In addition, the terrain is rough and the soil around Cape town isn't very fertile. Colonizing the Cape would provide a stop on the way to India, Indonesia or China to resupply and rest after months at sea. The French could grow grain, vegetables and grapes (for wine, they are French after all) to give to sailors (lack of vitamin C leads to scurvy, but that was not known at the time), or they could take up a pastoral lifestyle like the Dutch Boers did IOTL.

Of course, Louisiana is still an option, as are parts of South America (southern Brazil and Uruguay weren't settled at this time aside from one Spanish mission), but it is still close to Spanish La Plata and Portuguese Brazil), and they could always just focus on the Caribbean (lot$ of money to be made there), but let me know what you guys think.
 
The South (The Carolinas and Georgia) were still uncolonized up until the late 17th century, and the French had established settlements their in OTL (Charlesfort, Fort Caroline in Florida etc.). However, this area is close to Spanish Florida, and the Spanish had destroyed Fort Caroline and slaughtered all the French Huguenot colonists, so the French would have concerns about colonizing so close to the Spanish.
The interesting thing is, it is close to the thirty year war and the Franco-Spanish war. I could see the French actualy trying to capture some Spanish colonies in that region during that war, when the Spanish are distracted. Possibly even with English and Dutch help.
 
The interesting thing is, it is close to the thirty year war and the Franco-Spanish war. I could see the French actualy trying to capture some Spanish colonies in that region during that war, when the Spanish are distracted. Possibly even with English and Dutch help.
That's definitely a possibility, and Florida wasn't necessarily the jewel in the crown of the Spanish Empire, so it isn't too far fetched to see the French conquer Florida.
 
Part 1: The Fall of Québec
Part 1: The Fall of Québec
The year is 1628, and England and France are at war. This wasn't a rare occurrence, as England and France had been enemies for centuries by this point, and this rivalry had manifested in the New World. England has established colonies around the Chesapeake Bay and along Cape Cod, while the French were further north along the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. In this particular year, English privateer David Kirke captured the city (this is the POD, as IOTL Kirke captured it a year later after the war had ended), with the French settlers being repatriated to France. After the war ended, England acquired the French colonies of Canada and Acadia. What was the French colony of Québec was renamed to Kirkestown after the man who conquered it, with that name later evolving into Kirkeston. The new English colony of Canada was granted the St. Lawrence River valley as far west as the place the French had called Montréal. What was French Acadia was now the Scottish colony of Nova Scotia, and Scottish settlers began to arrive in the region. Settlers from the British Isles began to move into what had been French Canada, with settlements being established along the St. Lawrence River, such as Three Rivers and Mount Royal. The early settlers in Canada came primarily from England, while in Nova Scotia is was primarily Scottish settlers (duh, Nova Scotia = New Scotland). During the English Civil War of the 1640s and 1650s thousands of settlers from the British Isles fled to North America, with many coming to Canada and Nova Scotia. The population of Canada in 1650 was 7,250 while the population of Nova Scotia was 3,500 (all population are approximations), with a massive natural growth rate (7-9 children on average, with 4-5 surviving to adulthood) and small but steady immigration. No French presence was left in Canada due to the aforementioned repatriation, but the French would not be gone from the colonial game for long...
 
Last edited:
Butterflies away the American Revolution
I don't know how I'll handle that, but I'm sure I can work things out.
Speaking of which, should I butterfly famous figures (as would have happened), or ignore it and still put important people in this timeline (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin etc.)? In many timelines in the Maps & Graphics section modern figures aren't butterflied so it is easier for the creators to handle, and I'm thinking of doing the same (or making slightly modified versions of them).
 
Okay, here's another thing I want to talk about.
I'm thinking of having the French colonize the Southeastern United States (The Carolinas, Georgia etc.), but one question I have is disease. Malaria, yellow fever and other tropical diseases thrived in the swamps of the Coastal South, but I'm not sure whether these diseases were present further inland in the Southeastern U.S., or whether it was limited to the coast. If these diseases are limited to the coast, then the coast of OTL South Carolina and Georgia will have an enslaved African majority with a small White plantation owner minority, with the interior being inhabited by White farmers (and Indigenous groups, probably with some level of conflict on the one hand and intermarriage on the other), while on the other hand if diseases are present everywhere than the French South will have a Black slave majority across the whole country with a small White planter class on top, just a Haiti-style slave revolt in the making. The French Cajuns seem to have done quite well in the swamps of Louisiana, with the Cajun population growing from a few thousand Acadian exiles to about 1 million today, largely in Louisiana and East Texas (places with a very similar climate and geography to the Carolinas and Georgia), so I'd assume that they'd do OK in The Carolinas and Georgia. I'd also think that there would be more immigration since I doubt that the colonial authorities in the South would want a black majority (in case of a slave revolt they'd be screwed). Any thoughts?
 
Okay, here's another thing I want to talk about.
I'm thinking of having the French colonize the Southeastern United States (The Carolinas, Georgia etc.), but one question I have is disease. Malaria, yellow fever and other tropical diseases thrived in the swamps of the Coastal South, but I'm not sure whether these diseases were present further inland in the Southeastern U.S., or whether it was limited to the coast. If these diseases are limited to the coast, then the coast of OTL South Carolina and Georgia will have an enslaved African majority with a small White plantation owner minority, with the interior being inhabited by White farmers (and Indigenous groups, probably with some level of conflict on the one hand and intermarriage on the other), while on the other hand if diseases are present everywhere than the French South will have a Black slave majority across the whole country with a small White planter class on top, just a Haiti-style slave revolt in the making. The French Cajuns seem to have done quite well in the swamps of Louisiana, with the Cajun population growing from a few thousand Acadian exiles to about 1 million today, largely in Louisiana and East Texas (places with a very similar climate and geography to the Carolinas and Georgia), so I'd assume that they'd do OK in The Carolinas and Georgia. I'd also think that there would be more immigration since I doubt that the colonial authorities in the South would want a black majority (in case of a slave revolt they'd be screwed). Any thoughts?
The Malarial zone is limited to the coastal plane. The Piedmont region is better and Appalachia are Malaria-free.

 
Part 2: French Colony
Part 2: French Colony

After losing the small colonies in the north to the English, the French looked to the coastline between English Virginia and Spanish Florida to colonize. In 1631, King Louis XIII authorized a new colonial expedition to colonize this land that had previously been attempted for colonization by the French on two separate occasions. The first one was Charlesfort in 1562, which had been organized by Huguenot admiral Gaspard de Coligny and founded by Jean Ribault, but the colony was a disaster and the colonists sailed back to Europe after only a year. The second attempt was made a few years later in 1564 by Huguenot explorer René Goulaine de Laudonnière as a safe haven for French Huguenots, but he forgot not to found his colony of Fort Caroline near the Spanish, and said Spanish destroyed the colony and slaughtered the colonists. Seventy years later, and the French were looking at this area for a new colony once again, and so on the 14th of July of the year of our lord 1632, 240 Frenchmen set sail from the port of La Rochelle for the new world. After two and a half months on the high seas, they found a great spot for a new colony, with a sheltered peninsula surrounded by barrier islands and two river mouths on either side, with abundant wood and good soils, calling their new colony Rochelle after the place they had departed from months prior, and thus on October 2nd, 1632, the colony of French Florida (Florida is used for the entire Southeastern U.S. of OTL, not just the OTL State of Florida). A simple fortification was built from the local pine trees, as well as basic housing, storage, fishing boats and a small chapel. The overall terrain of the area had a resemblance to the Landes region south of Bordeaux, a mix of pine woodlands and marshes. Initally, the colonists survived off of fishing in the sheltered waters around them, plus trading with the natives (whom they had decent relations with during this time period), with experimentation of different crops in the cleared fields around them.

The summer came, and it was a HOT one. Summers in the colony of Rochelle were about 15 degrees Fahrenheit/7 degrees Celsius hotter than in La Rochelle back home, and many Frenchmen were not comfortable in such sultry conditions. Despite that, a second settler party of 180 settlers, some of whom were repatriated from Canada during the war was sent out for Floride, landing at the meeting of two rivers along the coast, adopting the native name of Chatoca for their new settlement in 1633. Farms were laid out along the river that the natives called the Neuse, and deals were made with the Tuscarora natives. Still, the biggest challenge for the French colonists weren't the natives, but the intense heat and increasingly diseases such as yellow fever that would strike and kill large numbers of settlers. A "solution" was found, but I'll get to that at a later date (hint: it's not a good thing). In the meantime, French Nobleman Jérôme le Royer de la Dauversière founded a religious mission of Ville-Marie to the southwest of the two colonies in order to proselytize to the natives of the region. The settlers were getting used to their new home, and starting to build a successful settlement in the region they called Neusequia (French: La Neusequie), a name adapted from the natives (basically the eastern part of OTL North Carolina).
 
What should the annual natural population growth for the white population of the French colony in the Southeastern U.S. be? Colonial populations further north would grow at 2.8% per year, or doubling every 25 years, but with diseases like malaria and yellow fever it would be less than that for sure, so any suggestions? I was thinking 2% per year, or doubling the population every 35 years, but other numbers would be helpful.
 
Part 3: Compagnie de la Floride
Part 3: Compagnie de la Floride

With the new French colony established on the Florida Coast, the crown gave control of the region to the newly chartered Compagnie de la Floride, or Company of Florida in English in 1635. The crown had several requirements for the company, such as making the colony profitable and recruiting 5000 settlers over the next 25 years to come to La Floride, or 200 per year, of which 1/3rd have to be women. During the first trades with the natives, the natives gave the captain of the settler party a plant and told him to smoke it. When he took a puff, a funny, yet good feeling, and thus Florida's tobacco industry was born. Wealthy French merchants and seigneurs bought land in and around the Neusequia colony, but eventually looked elsewhere. South of the existing colonies, new settlements such as Port Saint-Michel, Port Armand and Nouvelle-Charlesfort were established (although Nouvelle-Charlesfort is "New" because it was established on the site of the aforementioned Charlesfort). Initially, indentured servants and convicts were brought in to work the plantations, but the subtropical climate and diseases would take a toll quickly on them, with half dying within two years, not to mention that tobacco is very labor intensive. So, a replacement was found...

Ugh, you knew it was coming :(

In 1641, the first shipment of 50 African slaves was made to the port of Rochelle, marking the first appearance of the peculiar institution in La Floride, but it would be entrenched from there on out. Very early on, it was noticed that Africans were less affected by diseases such as Malaria and Yellow Fever than Europeans or Amerindians, and thus were less prone to die of said diseases. While Neusequia imported some slaves but mainly remained a white farming colony, the new southern colony of Armandia (French: L'Armandie) became heavily dependent on African slaves, especially in the coastal lowlands, and soon got an African majority population. The main crops grown on the plantations were tobacco, cotton, rice, indigo and sugarcane, all of which were labor intensive crops, while white farmers grew mainly wheat and corn as well as raising animals like cattle and sheep. The border with English Virginia was drawn along the Roanoke River, with the border west of there being unclear and vague.
 
1652 is when the Dutch founded Cape Town).
Uh no. They sent a criminal named Jan van Riebeeck to the Cape to establish a trading post. He got there April 6 1652. However, despite what most non-South Africans (and a great many South Africans) think, that isn't Cape Town's founding date. The VOC only allowed the people they'd sent with Van Riebeeck to be in the area. The Asians they sent in 1654 were not colonists but something like indentured servants sent by the Dutch legal system in Batavia. It was only in 1657 that the first farms were allowed by the VOC, and only in the 1660s that there was any real permanence (when they started building the Castle). But Cape Town's founding date would be in the time of van der Stel (before that, it was a couple of farms and a frontier style fort).

So, only once they start with the Castle, can one say that the Dutch were sending down roots. Before that, what's to stop the French/Portuguese/natives/whatever wiping them out à la Roanoke Colony
 
n addition, the terrain is rough and the soil around Cape town isn't very fertile.
There are countless vineyards, olive groves and the like in the Cape which would beg to differ. Hell, a friend of mine's family has been making wine on their farm on that side of the world almost as long as what there's been viticulture at the Cape.
 
There are countless vineyards, olive groves and the like in the Cape which would beg to differ. Hell, a friend of mine's family has been making wine on their farm on that side of the world almost as long as what there's been viticulture at the Cape.
I mean the Cape Flats (where all the apartheid-era Black and Coloured suburbs are), which I read is basically sand. The areas further east are more fertile and perfect for vineyards and other Mediterranean crops. In fact, I could very easily have seen the French colonizing South Africa, and it'd fit as the coast around Cape Town looks like the French Riviera (and I have a bit of a soft spot for a French Cape). I think that the French would have done quite well in The Cape, and hopefully whoever runs the French colony wouldn't be as strict as the VOC (who actively discouraged white settlement and wanted to keep the Afrikaners dependent on them if I'm right).
BTW, have you checked out this timeline? https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/lantarctique-a-french-protestant-south-africa.438212/
 
Top