Great Lakes Culture

POD-1628 Quebec and Acadia are annexed from France to England when Charles I rejects his French counterparts offer to pay his wife's dowry in exchange for the return of France's North American possessions.

In 1630 Charles I charters the Great Lakes Company, who's charter provisions for the exploration of the interior(north-west passage), trade with the natives(fur trade), and too establish settlements where it is advantageous too do so.

OKay so I'm thinking this culture will develop completely independent(culturally and economically)from those located on the eastern seaboard, though there could be similarities(with New England in particular).

So the stage is set for two distinct English speaking societies on the North American continent. The lack of a French presence means no French-Indian Wars and no imperial involvement resulting from aforementioned conflicts.

Thoughts?
 
Well, removing the threat of French invasion from Quebec will drastically atler the nature of the New England colonies early development. Firstly, they may feel a great freedom to expand, despite the legalities of the Great Lakes Company.

Second, does the POD have any change on the English civil wars? This will impact the American colonies far more than a larger dominion.

Presuming a relatively parallel course of history--salutary neglect by Britain, fear of France replace by fear of Indians (more aggressive because of the lack of Quebec)--I'd expect the greater area of expansion actually results in four distinct groups of colonies: the mid-atlantic colonies (with their own subdivision of the Chesapeake colonies and Pennsylvania and New York), the southern colonies, New England, and the Great Lakes colonies. The later probably includes a good deal more of inland settlement along the lakes.

Of course, without constant warfare with the French, the whole context for the American Revolution is butterflied. There is both less incentive for the British to maintain a garrison and less conflict between the British and the American colonists, since any Indian wars won't risk a wider conflict with a civilized power.

We've completely ignored, however, the possibility that the Dutch might maintain New York. Similarly, I don't think the British can long maintain a near monopoly on American colonization in the 1600s when there will be significant tensions at home.
 

Thande

Donor
Well, there would be less of an incentive for the colonies' interests to stay close to that of England without a French threat breathing down their necks. That doesn't necessarily mean an earlier ARW - it could mean that the English government recognises that America needs more self-rule because it would be more self-evident. Also there would probably be more colonists and thus a more populous America by the 18th century, as a continuous surge went from England, Scotland, Ireland and the Germanies to the Americas throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, whereas New France started with a fixed number of colonists and never got any new ones.

OTOH, about ten years after the POD, you have the English Civil War. Two possible knockon effects of this are -

  1. France takes advantage of this to take back New France, and maybe any bits of the English colonies it fancies.
  2. This larger and less threatened America is a more attractive proposition to retreat and regroup too if one of the two factions (probably the Royalists) is ejected from the British Isles altogether.

That's my tuppence.
 
Actually, this would butterfly away the American Revolution as we know it. The French and Indian War had the effect of developing American nationalism.
 

Thande

Donor
Actually, this would butterfly away the American Revolution as we know it. The French and Indian War had the effect of developing American nationalism.
Well, American nationalism also developed in the War of the Austrian Succession or King George's War as you call it, but yeah, fair point. Lack of an external enemy to unite against could also lead to more local colonial-focused identities.
 
What, are we ignoring the Spanish here? There's still plenty of non-English lands in North America that could be a source of trouble- the New Netherlands, as mentioned before, still existed at the PoD, and the nefarious Spaniards have plenty of lands west of the Mississippi.
 

Thande

Donor
What, are we ignoring the Spanish here? There's still plenty of non-English lands in North America that could be a source of trouble- the New Netherlands, as mentioned before, still existed at the PoD, and the nefarious Spaniards have plenty of lands west of the Mississippi.

But there's a long empty-except-for-Indians bit in between. The only place where English and Spanish colonists would rub together would be Florida (and the West Indies, obviously).
 
How many extra people would this bring over? More people settling around the Great Lakes may mean fewer people settling elsewhere. Maybe no Georgia?

A whale-sized butterfly y'all are overlooking is that the Huron weren't defeated until 1640ish, which is what let the Iroquois wipe out all the tribes in western PA and Ohio. No Huron defeat, no empty land to move into in the OTL Northwest Territory.

Another angle on the Indian problem is that the French were pretty good at supplying and inciting their ally Indians. But then again, there's no French there to send their allies off to die in their wars, so more natives will be around and alive.

As noted above, New Netherlands is still around, so there's trouble there. Trading for furs, supplying their Indian allies with guns, pretty much the sort of stuff that caused Indian wars in OTL.
 
How many extra people would this bring over? More people settling around the Great Lakes may mean fewer people settling elsewhere. Maybe no Georgia?

A whale-sized butterfly y'all are overlooking is that the Huron weren't defeated until 1640ish, which is what let the Iroquois wipe out all the tribes in western PA and Ohio. No Huron defeat, no empty land to move into in the OTL Northwest Territory.

Another angle on the Indian problem is that the French were pretty good at supplying and inciting their ally Indians. But then again, there's no French there to send their allies off to die in their wars, so more natives will be around and alive.

As noted above, New Netherlands is still around, so there's trouble there. Trading for furs, supplying their Indian allies with guns, pretty much the sort of stuff that caused Indian wars in OTL.

I think the consensus is that there's swarm of butterflies potentially unleashed by the POD. Enough to cause all sorts of chaos with the settlement of British North America. Too many to be sure what things might look like, however.
 
As far as France is concerned, I can't see them launching a major effort to take back her colonies. At the time of the English Civil War, France is engaged in fighting Austria(Holy Roman Empire), and Spain in the the Thirty Years War. During this period, France is courting England as an ally against her continental foes.
 
Colonial Development

From 1630-1689 colonial development would go pretty much OTL(no 1654 seizer of Acadia though), with England seizing New Netherland in 1667. In Canada, England takes France's place in trade with Algonquin speaking Indian nations, as opposed to the Netherlands trade with the Iriqous Indians. How the loss of the Dutch as allies effects the Iriqious, I can't be certain. No King William's War means less royal oversight in the colonies however.
 
From 1630-1689 colonial development would go pretty much OTL(no 1654 seizer of Acadia though), with England seizing New Netherland in 1667. In Canada, England takes France's place in trade with Algonquin speaking Indian nations, as opposed to the Netherlands trade with the Iriqous Indians. How the loss of the Dutch as allies effects the Iriqious, I can't be certain. No King William's War means less royal oversight in the colonies however.

But I can't see England completely taking France's place in terms of the Indians. Firstly, the Indians will eventually realize they're surrouned. This may provoke a much stronger reaction, if they're not occupying borderland, but the centerpoint between two English colonial bases. Secondly, the New England colonists certainly will begin to take the chance to expand, providing another point of conflict with the Indians.

If the Indians really do manage to unite in some way, this will realize one of the colonists' greatest fears. The colonists may themselves unite much sooner either in reaction or to preempt the indians (as they was contemplated in 1754).

Also, I still think it's vital to know what happens in England: does the civil war break out as OTL? Does the Restoration occur? Does the Glorious Revolution occur? It seems to me that there might be butterflies, particularly if a new Puritan sect decides to found a new colony in the 1630s. I don't know enough about English politics of the period to say.

However, the answer to all of these questions will determine the fate of the Confederation of New England, the Dominion of New England, to say nothing of the Propritary colonies in the South. Alter the fate of those two early interventions, and you're likely to alter a lot of the promordial ooze of the development of the "Contintental Mentality" which is pre-requisite not only for the American Revolution, but for our entire understanding of the workings of British North America.
 
Okay, so I've done some Wikipedia-ing and it occured to me: if the French do give up Canada in 1628, they still migh very well take Lousiana around 1682 as per OTL. This might satisfy the POD a bit better, since the French will still be around and thus still able (possibly) to stir up trouble. Certainly the concentration of their settlement around New Orleans may give them a higher population base. Perhaps they even realize they can create profitable sugar plantations in the area.

Hence, while the earlier conflicts with the French may subside, the later ones about control of the Ohio valley are probably strengthend. Plus, the French might even expand their claim, taking Florida and even part of Texas (which the Lousiana claim included). Also, they can begin relations with the more agriculturally oriented tribes of the South.

Now, there's still the problem of what happens to the Algonquin / Iroquois and the corresponding effect on the New England colonies. Crucially though, this will have a big effect on the Southern colonies. Now their Indian enemies will become the primary allies of the French in any wars between England / Britain and France.

Of course such a development likely creates all sorts of changes in Europe, since it may alter some of the calculations for the wars of the 17th century.
 
But I can't see England completely taking France's place in terms of the Indians. Firstly, the Indians will eventually realize they're surrouned. This may provoke a much stronger reaction, if they're not occupying borderland, but the centerpoint between two English colonial bases. Secondly, the New England colonists certainly will begin to take the chance to expand, providing another point of conflict with the Indians.

A very good point. I must admit I haven't thought about the possibility of an Iroquois-Algonquin alliance.

If the Indians really do manage to unite in some way, this will realize one of the colonists' greatest fears. The colonists may themselves unite much sooner either in reaction or to preempt the indians (as they was contemplated in 1754).
Interesting, perhaps a strong New England Confederation emerges earlier on.

Also, I still think it's vital to know what happens in England: does the civil war break out as OTL? Does the Restoration occur? Does the Glorious Revolution occur? It seems to me that there might be butterflies, particularly if a new Puritan sect decides to found a new colony in the 1630s. I don't know enough about English politics of the period to say.
I think its safe to say the English Civil War still breaks out, and the restoration probably takes place(barring Oliver Cromwell ascension to the throne). Following the restoration we see King James attempt to enforce the Dominion of New England-and colonial resistance too.
However, the answer to all of these questions will determine the fate of the Confederation of New England, the Dominion of New England, to say nothing of the Propritary colonies in the South. Alter the fate of those two early interventions, and you're likely to alter a lot of the promordial ooze of the development of the "Contintental Mentality" which is pre-requisite not only for the American Revolution, but for our entire understanding of the workings of British North America.
True though I think the colonials immediate circumstances are also very important to Continental development. Relations with the Indians probably turn soar after 1670 as the result of unimpeded colonial encroachment.
 
Top