Great Lakes Culture Version 2.0

OKay so I realize my previous POD was a little to early to generate real discussion so I'll go with a bit later POD

Here's Version 1.0 http://https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=89781

POD 1655 after seizing Acadia the previous year, New England forces blockade Quebec into submission. Under the sponsorship of English bankers, the Great Lakes Company is chartered for the exploration, settlement, and trade in the great lakes area of North America.

1657-1667, English explorers and trades men establish settlements at St.Regis and Ogdensburg on the southern shore of the St. Lawrence, at Sackett's Harbor and Oswego on the south shore of Lake Ontario.

1667 Under the Treaty of Breda, Acadia and Canada are returned to France in exchange for rights of navigation on the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes.
 
OKay so I realize my previous POD was a little to early to generate real discussion so I'll go with a bit later POD

Here's Version 1.0 http://https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=89781

POD 1655 after seizing Acadia the previous year, New England forces blockade Quebec into submission. Under the sponsorship of English bankers, the Great Lakes Company is chartered for the exploration, settlement, and trade in the great lakes area of North America.

1657-1667, English explorers and trades men establish settlements at St.Regis and Ogdensburg on the southern shore of the St. Lawrence, at Sackett's Harbor and Oswego on the south shore of Lake Ontario.

1667 Under the Treaty of Breda, Acadia and Canada are returned to France in exchange for rights of navigation on the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes.

Just so I understand the territories involved, you're saying the Britain gives back Acadia and Canada (i.e. OTL Quebec). Which means they've handed the French the mouth of the river on which their new settlements depend? That seems hard to fathom, but not outside the realm of possibility.

Also, where do the New Englanders get the ships to blockade Quebec in 1655? If this is a purely New England operation, I'd imagine they're pretty pissed in 1667. Also, does this mean that the New Englanders have had their land passed away by the restored Charles II? Like a former day Louisberg. There might be a some kind of revolt (emphasis on might); this will be interesting because this is very easily crushed. Charles may attempt a wider restructuring of the colonies than he did OTL (with the Dominion of New England)...but that can easily be un-done by William and Mary. However, if the War of the Grand Alliance results in a recapture of Quebec and Acadia (or just the latter), then there might an interesting chance for some kind of colonial settlement. I doubt it changes feelings in Britain, but it would increase the extent to which the colonists feel the Glorious Revolution is their Revolution too.

Given the interferences of Charles II that are still likely, I doubt the NE Confederation sticks in this TL. However, the new settlements will be in the middle of Indian country. Some kind of conflict will come if the English settle in Ohio as they do in Virginia and New England. However, this further settlement may resist the "plantation" style of settlement. I use the term in its 17th century context, by which it also referred to the New England settlements, meaning any "planted" population. These Ohio settlement may have a great likelihood to act as the French did, trading furs and the like, for want of any other activity. However, eventually settlements will grow.

Again, I'd see the French taking a much more active role in settling Lousiana, potentially discovering the ability to engage in sugar-cultivation there (much sugar is produced today in LA and Texas). However, this POD has less of a potential to induce the whale size butterflies of the previous.

I see a couple of tensions-points. First, the Indian question is still unresolved. Here the Alongonquins and Iroquois are even more surrounded than they were OTL and in the previous version. The British government, however, will not have an interest in keeping peace between the colonists and the Indians, since the Indians are no longer French allies (they still might be via the Mississippi and Ohio). I foresee some kind of Indian war. Things might get interesting if after a defeat, the remainder migrate into OTL Kentucky and begin to forge ties with the Cherokee and the Creeks. All three groups probably have French backing from Lousiana.

Second, there's liable to be more tension between the colonies and Britain over any perceived slight to the colonists' liberties as British subjects. Because the Southern colonies will also be bounded by the French and the Indians, the colonies may begin to feel a common interest earlier than they did OTL. An Albany Plan is probably slightly more likely than OTL, but only slightly, since it will still engender fear from the colonial assemblies themselves. The French are also likely to be much harder to dislodge from Lousiana (given the distance and terrain) than they were from Canada.

Third, I wonder what the earlier loss of Quebec does for the French treasury? How much did it contribute OTL? Does it induce Louis XIV to reform the Estates-General? Probably not, since the effects may take longer. But if sugar is successfully cultivated in Lousianna, than TTL French Louisianna has the potential to be very profitable to the French crown, if the expereince of the sugar isles of the Carribean translates (which I presume it does). This has the potential to have HUGE butterflies, which may be fun.

Fourth, given the distances involved, I'd imagine that salutary neglect probably sets in as OTL. There's really one issues which might break the trend, however, and force some kind of interference in colonial affairs: the settlements along the Great Lakes will conflict with the sea-to-sea provisions of the colonial charters. Now, this could be easily recitified at the founding of the RGLC (Royal Great Lakes Company) and / or when William and Mary re-issue Royal Charters for the New England colonies, but I doubt it. In the first instance, the RGLC is viewed as a trading company, not a settlement one. In the second, the colonies will resent any such implication; such resentment would errode the settlement William and Mary sought by re-issuing the charters. Hence, at some point in the 1700s there may arise some kind of complaint over who controls the Great Lakes settlements, with two or more competing colonies vying over control while the settlements themselves probably want to be colonies of their own. This kind of dispute has the potential to resolve Parliamentary sovereignty over the colonies in such a way to muddle any tax revolt on the scale of OTL's American Revolution.

While OTL's USA is out the window, a "Great Lakes Culture" in the British Colonies may well emerge, which IIRC was the oringial intent of the POD / WI.
 
Just so I understand the territories involved, you're saying the Britain gives back Acadia and Canada (i.e. OTL Quebec). Which means they've handed the French the mouth of the river on which their new settlements depend? That seems hard to fathom, but not outside the realm of possibility.

True though like you said I don't think its out of the realm of possibility(i.e. Mississippi after ARW).

Also, where do the New Englanders get the ships to blockade Quebec in 1655? If this is a purely New England operation, I'd imagine they're pretty pissed in 1667. Also, does this mean that the New Englanders have had their land passed away by the restored Charles II? Like a former day Louisberg. There might be a some kind of revolt (emphasis on might); this will be interesting because this is very easily crushed. Charles may attempt a wider restructuring of the colonies than he did OTL (with the Dominion of New England)...but that can easily be un-done by William and Mary. However, if the War of the Grand Alliance results in a recapture of Quebec and Acadia (or just the latter), then there might an interesting chance for some kind of colonial settlement. I doubt it changes feelings in Britain, but it would increase the extent to which the colonists feel the Glorious Revolution is their Revolution too.
In 1690, New England achieved naval supremacy on the St. Lawrence but failed in its direct attack on Quebec(blockade may have worked then as well). Just like in OTL, Charles doesn't care what the colonists think, he handed back Acadia in OTL without consulting the Colonials, but I doubt any revolt would have occurred as it would've gained nothing.

Given the interferences of Charles II that are still likely, I doubt the NE Confederation sticks in this TL. However, the new settlements will be in the middle of Indian country. Some kind of conflict will come if the English settle in Ohio as they do in Virginia and New England. However, this further settlement may resist the "plantation" style of settlement. I use the term in its 17th century context, by which it also referred to the New England settlements, meaning any "planted" population. These Ohio settlement may have a great likelihood to act as the French did, trading furs and the like, for want of any other activity. However, eventually settlements will grow.
I'm also looking at what counter moves France would make in America after the establishment of an English presence in the Great Lakes region.

Again, I'd see the French taking a much more active role in settling Lousiana, potentially discovering the ability to engage in sugar-cultivation there (much sugar is produced today in LA and Texas). However, this POD has less of a potential to induce the whale size butterflies of the previous.
I'm thinking the French may seek to establish posts throughout western New York as a way of keeping control of the approaches to the Ohio Country. While, Britain attempts to establish control over the Niagara peninsula in order to link up with the Hudson's Bay companies holdings.

I see a couple of tensions-points. First, the Indian question is still unresolved. Here the Alongonquins and Iroquois are even more surrounded than they were OTL and in the previous version. The British government, however, will not have an interest in keeping peace between the colonists and the Indians, since the Indians are no longer French allies (they still might be via the Mississippi and Ohio). I foresee some kind of Indian war. Things might get interesting if after a defeat, the remainder migrate into OTL Kentucky and begin to forge ties with the Cherokee and the Creeks. All three groups probably have French backing from Lousiana.
Well, the French are still influential in the North-east(Lake Champlain)

Second, there's liable to be more tension between the colonies and Britain over any perceived slight to the colonists' liberties as British subjects. Because the Southern colonies will also be bounded by the French and the Indians, the colonies may begin to feel a common interest earlier than they did OTL. An Albany Plan is probably slightly more likely than OTL, but only slightly, since it will still engender fear from the colonial assemblies themselves. The French are also likely to be much harder to dislodge from Lousiana (given the distance and terrain) than they were from Canada.
Good insight

Third, I wonder what the earlier loss of Quebec does for the French treasury? How much did it contribute OTL? Does it induce Louis XIV to reform the Estates-General? Probably not, since the effects may take longer. But if sugar is successfully cultivated in Lousianna, than TTL French Louisianna has the potential to be very profitable to the French crown, if the expereince of the sugar isles of the Carribean translates (which I presume it does). This has the potential to have HUGE butterflies, which may be fun.
Well they still have Canada, its just that England has more of a role in the fur-trade compared to OTL. Basically we see British colonies develop in Northern New York and on the Niagara Peninsula.

Fourth, given the distances involved, I'd imagine that salutary neglect probably sets in as OTL. There's really one issues which might break the trend, however, and force some kind of interference in colonial affairs: the settlements along the Great Lakes will conflict with the sea-to-sea provisions of the colonial charters. Now, this could be easily recitified at the founding of the RGLC (Royal Great Lakes Company) and / or when William and Mary re-issue Royal Charters for the New England colonies, but I doubt it. In the first instance, the RGLC is viewed as a trading company, not a settlement one. In the second, the colonies will resent any such implication; such resentment would errode the settlement William and Mary sought by re-issuing the charters. Hence, at some point in the 1700s there may arise some kind of complaint over who controls the Great Lakes settlements, with two or more competing colonies vying over control while the settlements themselves probably want to be colonies of their own. This kind of dispute has the potential to resolve Parliamentary sovereignty over the colonies in such a way to muddle any tax revolt on the scale of OTL's American Revolution.
Interesting, remarkable insight

While OTL's USA is out the window, a "Great Lakes Culture" in the British Colonies may well emerge, which IIRC was the oringial intent of the POD / WI.
Basically, though I don't see anything particularly out of the window yet.
 
I guess I had written much of my discussion on the premise that the War of the Grand Alliance sees the reconquest of Canada. That may be a bit much, but it might also fit with the feeling of the GR in the colonies.

With the scheme you propose, the scene is set for much more conflict in the Ohio country much sooner. There will be overlapping trade networks, if not outright competition, not too mention conflicting lines of supply between outposts. All this bother over what was at the time the remotest part of North America seems to me to indicate one of the colonial powers will simply decide to oust the other. However, it might also create bigger North American wars sooner. This too could have huge consequences for the development of British America: imperial unity was always at its height when the colonials were helping the Crown defeat the papist, debauched, savage-loving Frogs.
 
Well, whether England or France could oust each other from North America seems largely dependent on what happens in Europe, rather than North America. I don't think events in North America could effect the course of events in Europe very greatly in terms of victory on the battlefield.

I think the French Empire in America may last longer due too the fact that France has a bargaining chip in granting access to the St. Lawrence in peacetime. Maybe France keeps Acadia in 1713 for example.
 
Well, whether England or France could oust each other from North America seems largely dependent on what happens in Europe, rather than North America. I don't think events in North America could effect the course of events in Europe very greatly in terms of victory on the battlefield.

I think the French Empire in America may last longer due too the fact that France has a bargaining chip in granting access to the St. Lawrence in peacetime. Maybe France keeps Acadia in 1713 for example.

Both good points. I would dispute the point about the territory depending on the outcome in Europe. At times colonial territory became chits to even out the European score, but at other points in time victory on the ground in North America determined the peace, particularly in the case of the Seven Years War.

The ability of the French to grant acess to the St. Lawrence is probably huge, however, especially if they also control the Mississippi. If I can clarify, though, it seems from your description that French settlement of the Ohio valley will begin to overlap with British settlements on the Lakes. This seems to me to necessitate some kind of more lasting solution for permanent control.
 
Top