French America= Earlier Revolution?

If the French had won the French-Indian or Seven Years war I am assuming that ITTL The 13 Colonies that become the United States are taken by France. IN this event, would The Colonists revolt earlier?

German and English were the Primary languages spoken by the colonists (English being more prominent than German), and I presume they would opposed being ruled by The French.

Would a Revolution occur earlier? And if it succeed, Would the new country already have Louisiana and Quebec?
 
I find it unlikely that the French would take all 13 colonies! Maybe take bits of land, parts of Canada, and impose restrictions on the colonies, but not outright annexation. The French did well in the French & Indian war by using unconventional tactics. While those tactics worked well in the Ohio River valley, they would not be enough to capture the Eastern Seaboard.
 
You would assume wrongly.

The poulation disparity was immense between British and French North America, even facyoring in the Native Nations allied to France. Frace seizing much less holding the 13 is pure ASB.

The exact prizes of a French victory would depend on how exactly the Seven Years War ended. After all North America wasn't the sole theater and a victory could reult in anything from a status quo antebellum in North America for other prizes, or serious changes in North America. But annexation would not happen on even half the scale you suggest because the Colonies were to populous and profitable to be conquered or traded away.

I am no expert but from wht I know a very favorable peace to France would have: Recognition of their Ohio Valley claims. Favored trade status and restrictions. Border adjustments between Quebec and the colonies bordering it. And if the French are willing to give back elsewghere and very strong Acadia goes back to France, but that I think is skirting wank.
 
Indeed - the worst case for a French Victory in the 7YW would be a status quo ante bellum, yet a better case would be economic concessions and reduced claims for the Thirteen Colonies.

The Thirteen Colonies would be too hard for France to hold. Plus, they didn't really do settler colonialism, and they didn't do the whole "let the Huguenots immigrate" thing because they'd prefer New France to be Catholic.
 
Indeed - the worst case for a French Victory in the 7YW would be a status quo ante bellum, yet a better case would be economic concessions and reduced claims for the Thirteen Colonies.

The Thirteen Colonies would be too hard for France to hold. Plus, they didn't really do settler colonialism, and they didn't do the whole "let the Huguenots immigrate" thing because they'd prefer New France to be Catholic.

I concur. There is no way that the 15 colonies (including St. John & Nova Scotia) are going to fall to France. The Great Lakes region however, might go to France w/the peace treaty.
 
France would not take much land at all. There overall plan in the 7 years war was to let the colonies defend themselves and Focus on the contident. The French were almost certian alot of thier colonies would fall, but the plan was to make major gains in Europe. France DID lose there colonies, but not much for big gains in europe was made.
 
France would not take much land at all. There overall plan in the 7 years war was to let the colonies defend themselves and Focus on the contident. The French were almost certian alot of thier colonies would fall, but the plan was to make major gains in Europe. France DID lose there colonies, but not much for big gains in europe was made.

Which fits in with their philosophy as Europe's primary land power - the strength of the Prussian army notwithstanding, the French had the dominant land army, used by Napoleon to great effect.
 
The Seven Years War never pushed beyond Albany, NY- and those were raids.

A French "victory" in the American theatre would mean that France would retain de jure rights to the Ohio Country and they'd take bits of Northern NY and Lake Champlain. It would probably set up a future conflict between aggressive U.S. settlers, the French and Native Americans.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The Seven Years War never pushed beyond Albany, NY- and those were raids.

A French "victory" in the American theatre would mean that France would retain de jure rights to the Ohio Country and they'd take bits of Northern NY and Lake Champlain. It would probably set up a future conflict between aggressive U.S. settlers, the French and Native Americans.

Or the Illinois region could turn out like the Mexican "provincias internas" where most of the early settlement was done by americans, especially as any major settlement of the region will likely begin under Louis XVI or the first republic.
 
Or the Illinois region could turn out like the Mexican "provincias internas" where most of the early settlement was done by americans, especially as any major settlement of the region will likely begin under Louis XVI or the first republic.

So a French Texas analogue?

And would a French victory in the 7YW still lead to a French revolution like OTL's? Remember that even though the root causes of the revolution are there, there won't be the circumstances that led to its immediate cause here.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
So a French Texas analogue?

And would a French victory in the 7YW still lead to a French revolution like OTL's? Remember that even though the root causes of the revolution are there, there won't be the circumstances that led to its immediate cause here.

The economic crisis was worsened by the american revolution, but IIRC it would probably have blowed up in part because of how badly managed french finances were since the regency, with millions of pounds a year in various things that somehow were still being paid even after they'd been paid in full decades ago in the more extreme cases. And unless they manage to get Necker or a Necker-alike as full minister, they won't be able to pull the desired reforms, while it's too late for Louis XV's cadaster not to be sabotaged by the nobility, etc. France needed reforms which political inertia made impossible to do.

But, true, it would probably have lasted longer without the american revolution.
 
So a French Texas analogue?

Kind of, but bear in mind here that the most important thing is not that the "Texas" of this scenario is the French-owned Great Lakes/Ohio area, but instead that the 13 Colonies are still British. It's entirely likely that the Colonists will attempt to populate that Great Lakes area again and attempt to start a war over it to win it back, but unlike the Texas situation OTL they can't just vote to annex it and then march an army in in support. If a war starts, it will instantly become a colonial war between Britain and France and the colonists will be nothing more than auxiliaries for the British. In this situation, you can't just expect the Americans to roll over the territory, camp on the borders and wait until France decides that it's no longer worthwhile trying to win it back and sues for peace. Instead, all of the British and French colonies across the world - particularly the Caribbean islands - would become fair game - and whether the colonists got their wish to retain the land they'd attempted to filibuster would be essentially down to how well the British did elsewhere.
 
Kind of, but bear in mind here that the most important thing is not that the "Texas" of this scenario is the French-owned Great Lakes/Ohio area, but instead that the 13 Colonies are still British. It's entirely likely that the Colonists will attempt to populate that Great Lakes area again and attempt to start a war over it to win it back, but unlike the Texas situation OTL they can't just vote to annex it and then march an army in in support. If a war starts, it will instantly become a colonial war between Britain and France and the colonists will be nothing more than auxiliaries for the British. In this situation, you can't just expect the Americans to roll over the territory, camp on the borders and wait until France decides that it's no longer worthwhile trying to win it back and sues for peace. Instead, all of the British and French colonies across the world - particularly the Caribbean islands - would become fair game - and whether the colonists got their wish to retain the land they'd attempted to filibuster would be essentially down to how well the British did elsewhere.

So it all depends on how Britain and France do? I can see France effectively giving up the colonies until the negotiations.
 
So it all depends on how Britain and France do? I can see France effectively giving up the colonies until the negotiations.

France would instead concentrate on trying to win the valuable spice islands off Britain - bear in mind that our POD was France winning the 7YW anyway so we are expecting France to be stronger to some degree in this TL - and the colonists won't get involved in the Caribbean. It's entirely feasible that the French would do better overall than the British, and then London would have a tough choice between giving away its very profitable islands, or telling the colonists to clear off the far-far-less-valuable Ohio lands. Bearing in mind that London already had taken issue with the colonists' disregard for national boundaries and their willingness - even, intention - to mistreat their neighbouring states (native and colonial) means that they by no means would necessarily support the colonists in the peace treaty (which the colonists would have no representative at). On the other hand, they may choose that the lesser of two evils is reduced profits in exchange for eliminating a source of conflict for the colonists. Of course, another equally plausible option is that the Royal Navy is just too strong for France and Britain wins the war and makes its own demands - but it's not a foregone conclusion, not at all. This stuff is entirely up in the air to be honest, and is the kind of thing where, if you were writing a TL about this, you could essentially choose the course and the winner of the war yourself without much complaint, so long as the campaigns made logical sense.

Bear in mind, in case you were thinking about it, that Britain refusing to support its colonists and essentially turning round and telling them "leave Ohio now and play by the rules!" would upset the colonists yes, but a major factor in securing their loyalty was the threat of a large French colony on their borders. If the French retain their North American possessions, the colonists are likely to be too nervous of reprisals to risk attempting another ARW - so the British siding with Caribbean status quo and telling the 13 Colonies to stop expanding into their "claims" would not likely instantly spark a declaration of independence, counter to what some here may suggest.
 
Whe also have no Spanish Louisiana. No British Cuba to trade with Spain for Florida.

In the ?1780? war with France I expect Britain to take all three -- Quebec, Louisiana, and Florida.
 
It depends: if France wins sooner, then Britian wouldn't have to tax the crap of the the 13 colonies. Even if the French did take over the British colonies, they would have revolted against French rule anyways. Imagine the trouble with French Canadians times 5.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
It depends: if France wins sooner, then Britian wouldn't have to tax the crap of the the 13 colonies. Even if the French did take over the British colonies, they would have revolted against French rule anyways. Imagine the trouble with French Canadians times 5.

10 referendums and an uprising of a few thousand people in the 1830s after France buys the colonies' conservatives while letting its liberals rot, plus a large and annoying victimhood complex from both the dominant french and the english minority?

Also Britain would have to tax to pay for the war anyway, and would still impose HEIC monopolies on the colonists, still leading to discontent from the mercantile and liberal classes of the colonies.
 
Top