How America almost became French

BS, just compare the population of the French colonies vs the one of the British. 10 if not 20 times bigger in 1750.

I mean that there is no way that the 13 colonies become French, not that New France survives.
 
Last edited:

longsword14

Banned
It is an exaggerated claim. Would not have that big a difference in the long term. Colonisation as a serious effort did not have the same backing as in an island kingdom. To change things you have to go back to Louis XIV or even further.
 
Yeah, a French victory at the Plains of Abraham would have meant at best that France would get Louisbourg back at the end of the war, and would hang on to New France for another couple decades. Don't get me wrong, I think there's lots of interesting PODs in a France which still has possession of New France during the revolution (such as the monarchy fleeing to Quebec), but there's no way that would have made America French. That's a misleading headline.
 

Spengler

Banned
Yeah the significance is way to overstated, at the time the french had been beaten back from the Ohio, and they had lost Ticonderoga. I guess this scenario keeps the USA from forming as the threat of New France and the absence of a 1763 line will keep the Colonies in line with Britain but France will definitely not be claiming a victory in North America.
 
Silly headline. In no way were the 13 colonies ever in danger of French takeover and for that matter, the Ohio Valley had been conquered by the British by this time. The Plains of Abraham settled the fate of Canada, not the future United States.
 

ben0628

Banned
First off, I agree that a French victory at Quebec would not mean a French America. The Ohio Valley, Fort Niagara, Upstate New York and Louisburg had been occupied by the British at this point and only mainland Canada was left at this point. To make matters worse, this is about the time of the war that the French Navy started getting is ass kicked and the War on the continent was more or less a stalemate.

However, with a couple pod changes, we could see a major French Victory.

1) First off, a French Victory at Quebec. I personally feel that had the British forces at Quebec were defeated, they would have been destroyed since retreat (down the cliffs from whence the came) was impossible. Losing an entire army would be a huge blow to the British and Montcalm would have been able to take the offensive and retake Upstate New York as well as Niagara (British can't really defend Niagara if Albany is under threat).

2) Under British rule, the Indians of the Ohio Valley would have eventually rebelled, especially if given French help, there have been a few academic journals I've read that states even without Pontiac (who'd still be living under French control with its victory at Quebec so he wouldn't rebel) there would still have been a rebellion similar to Pontiac's, just at a limited scale. Amherst's Indian policy was atrocious and the Native Americans didn't like all the English frontiersmen coming in after British Construction of Fort Pitt. Ohio Indians would still rebel like in otl, but with A French victory at Quebec, the French would be able to help recapture the Ohio Valley and once again wreak havoc on Pennsylvanias and Virginia's frontiers.

2) The second pod. Destroy Prussia. It almost happened, it should have happened, hell I'd argue Prussian survival during this war should have been asb. If this happens, Austria and France win in Germany (region not country), allowing the French to occupy British Hanover.

3) French Navy doesn't get destroyed in the bay of Biscay. A large portion of the French Navy got destroyed here. Avoid it, and the colonies can continue to still be supplied (British did attempt to blockade French Canada, but from what I read they did a poor job. I was easier to just blockade France itself and destroy their ships over there).

4) Also if British lose at Quebec, they may not have the strength to deal with the Cherokee and Creek who go to war with them in the late 1750s, early 1760s

So, a French victory at Quebec doesn't mean crap. But a French victory at Quebec combined with slightly less British naval supremacy and the destruction of Prussia would mean serious French victory on the continent and a stalemate in North America. In a peace treaty under this scenario, the French give back Hannover, Prussia is allowed to survive (to a limited extent), however the French get the Ohio Valley permanently as well as Nova Scotia, Louisburg, and maybe Northern Canada as well as a couple other things.

At this point Great Britain financially would probably be screwed like otl, if not more. We can still potentially see the American revolution occurring (France wouldn't help in this scenario), which would weaken both GB and the colonies, hopefully enough that France can focus on its own financial problems and be ready for the next conflict with the British with a larger navy, more French colonists, and more troops in the colonies. Also Native American populations have several decades to regain some of their strength as well. Although this may be far fetched, there is a good chance that a French victory in the Seven Years War does contain American/English expansion west of the Appalachians and allows French colonization of most of America.
 
ben,
I don't disagree with your overall hypothesis. the problem is that it requires more than one POD. although Prussia OTL seems highly unlikely at the start, it did happen. Britain committed to an America first, while France committed to a Europe first. under those circumstances, America is lost for the French. their plan was to win Europe, then trade back for America. The problem is that France lost pretty much everywhere. Turning it into a scenario with the same general set of setups, but somehow France wins or ties in all or most of the OTL setups requires a lot of PODs.

now, if you make a single POD of Britain not adopting the America first strategy, you make America a stalemate, and completely changes the dynamics of what happens in Europe. having Britain go toe to toe with France on France's terms changes everything. then you can write any outcome you want.

a more accurate (although far less eye catching sensational) would be 'how 20 minutes sealed France's fate in the new world'. by the time of the battle France was pretty much resigned to being a minor colonial presence in America. the only thing the battle did was ensure they were going to be no presence.

If, though, the British lost the battle, the French are still fooked. they don't have enough manpower or resources to go on the offensive. the best they can hope for is continued stalemate in Canada, which would allow them to keep a small portion there. the Ohio valley and everything east of the mississippi is lost unless things go far better in Europe for the French. Louisiana is questionable. If Spain still jumps in, it's highly likely they're still as incompetent as OTL, and are still going to want compensation, and with Louisiana being cut off from Canada by loss of the Ohio valley, it's pretty useless to France. On the other hand, if things go better for France in the war, they may not pressure Spain to enter the war out of desperation. On the third hand, if Spain entered the war earlier (with all else being relatively OTL), maybe Carlos takes over sooner POD, even their incompetent military could swing things for their alliance in '57, 58, 59. Jumping in AFTER everyone else lost made Spain irrelevant to the outcome.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
A French victory on the Plains of Abraham might have allowed New France to remain French, and for that reason it is one of the decisive events in the history of North America. But it could not have caused the British colonies (future United States, in other words) to become French.
 
ben,
I don't disagree with your overall hypothesis. the problem is that it requires more than one POD. although Prussia OTL seems highly unlikely at the start, it did happen. Britain committed to an America first, while France committed to a Europe first. under those circumstances, America is lost for the French. their plan was to win Europe, then trade back for America. The problem is that France lost pretty much everywhere. Turning it into a scenario with the same general set of setups, but somehow France wins or ties in all or most of the OTL setups requires a lot of PODs.

now, if you make a single POD of Britain not adopting the America first strategy, you make America a stalemate, and completely changes the dynamics of what happens in Europe. having Britain go toe to toe with France on France's terms changes everything. then you can write any outcome you want.

a more accurate (although far less eye catching sensational) would be 'how 20 minutes sealed France's fate in the new world'. by the time of the battle France was pretty much resigned to being a minor colonial presence in America. the only thing the battle did was ensure they were going to be no presence.

If, though, the British lost the battle, the French are still fooked. they don't have enough manpower or resources to go on the offensive. the best they can hope for is continued stalemate in Canada, which would allow them to keep a small portion there. the Ohio valley and everything east of the mississippi is lost unless things go far better in Europe for the French. Louisiana is questionable. If Spain still jumps in, it's highly likely they're still as incompetent as OTL, and are still going to want compensation, and with Louisiana being cut off from Canada by loss of the Ohio valley, it's pretty useless to France. On the other hand, if things go better for France in the war, they may not pressure Spain to enter the war out of desperation. On the third hand, if Spain entered the war earlier (with all else being relatively OTL), maybe Carlos takes over sooner POD, even their incompetent military could swing things for their alliance in '57, 58, 59. Jumping in AFTER everyone else lost made Spain irrelevant to the outcome.

I disagree. The british forces had not crossed the Appalachians. So if the french had won the 7 years war on the north american battlefield, the most probable outcome was statu quo ante bellum.

Although there remained the structural demographic imbalance with 15 to 20 times as many european settlers in the british colonies than in the french colonies. So the french needed to increase quickly there number of settlers if they wanted to loosen the anglo-saxon pressure. But stronger demographics on the french side may have definitely blocked anglo-saxon expansion and have contained the 13 colonies to their 1754 extension.

During the peace negotiations, the british let the french the choice between regaining their north american territories of their sugar islands.

The french chose the sugar island that was going to cease being profitable a mere generation later. The french elite were short-sighted.
 
I disagree. The british forces had not crossed the Appalachians. So if the french had won the 7 years war on the north american battlefield, the most probable outcome was statu quo ante bellum.

Although there remained the structural demographic imbalance with 15 to 20 times as many european settlers in the british colonies than in the french colonies. So the french needed to increase quickly there number of settlers if they wanted to loosen the anglo-saxon pressure. But stronger demographics on the french side may have definitely blocked anglo-saxon expansion and have contained the 13 colonies to their 1754 extension.

During the peace negotiations, the british let the french the choice between regaining their north american territories of their sugar islands.

The french chose the sugar island that was going to cease being profitable a mere generation later. The french elite were short-sighted.
Shouldnt New France have increased it demographics a bit earlier, I mean that by the time of the 7 years war the difference was so big I doubt France could resister later wars easily. Maybe a POD in 1700 would help with that.
 

ben0628

Banned
A French victory on the Plains of Abraham might have allowed New France to remain French, and for that reason it is one of the decisive events in the history of North America. But it could not have caused the British colonies (future United States, in other words) to become French.

I agree the thirteen colonies would never become French (New Hampshire and the Maine part of Massachusetts are exceptions. However, a French America West of the Appalachians is a possibility, or at least id argue that it is one.

ben,
I don't disagree with your overall hypothesis. the problem is that it requires more than one POD. although Prussia OTL seems highly unlikely at the start, it did happen. Britain committed to an America first, while France committed to a Europe first. under those circumstances, America is lost for the French. their plan was to win Europe, then trade back for America. The problem is that France lost pretty much everywhere. Turning it into a scenario with the same general set of setups, but somehow France wins or ties in all or most of the OTL setups requires a lot of PODs.

now, if you make a single POD of Britain not adopting the America first strategy, you make America a stalemate, and completely changes the dynamics of what happens in Europe. having Britain go toe to toe with France on France's terms changes everything. then you can write any outcome you want.

a more accurate (although far less eye catching sensational) would be 'how 20 minutes sealed France's fate in the new world'. by the time of the battle France was pretty much resigned to being a minor colonial presence in America. the only thing the battle did was ensure they were going to be no presence.

If, though, the British lost the battle, the French are still fooked. they don't have enough manpower or resources to go on the offensive. the best they can hope for is continued stalemate in Canada, which would allow them to keep a small portion there. the Ohio valley and everything east of the mississippi is lost unless things go far better in Europe for the French. Louisiana is questionable. If Spain still jumps in, it's highly likely they're still as incompetent as OTL, and are still going to want compensation, and with Louisiana being cut off from Canada by loss of the Ohio valley, it's pretty useless to France. On the other hand, if things go better for France in the war, they may not pressure Spain to enter the war out of desperation. On the third hand, if Spain entered the war earlier (with all else being relatively OTL), maybe Carlos takes over sooner POD, even their incompetent military could swing things for their alliance in '57, 58, 59. Jumping in AFTER everyone else lost made Spain irrelevant to the outcome.

I agree with your first two paragraphs, but not the last two. I do not believe France's fate was sealed in North America at that point. There was actually a good chance that the French could have retook Quebec in the following spring. The British garrison at Quebec had been shrunk considerably, and the French has sent ships and troops from France in early Spring to arrive at Quebec just as the St. Lawrence began to unfroze. At the same time, a French force from Montreal was marching east. The only reason why it failed was because the British navy had arrived before the French one and the French troops from Montreal didn't have the artillery necessary to siege Quebec-so they withdrew. Had the French fleet arrived first, Quebec could have easily been retaken, at which point the British have to do it all over again (without as much luck as last time).

Now, had the British lost at the Plains of Abraham, many losses the French suffered could be reversed. As said in my last post, Wolfe's army would not have been able to successfully retreat and had it been defeated, it would have been decimated. Without a major army against him, Montcalm could easily and would go back on the offensive. He would most likely strike Upstate New York. First off I would like to clarify something when it comes to Upstate New York. It wasn't taken by the British, it was abandoned by the French. Only reason why was because of the threat to Quebec. Once the threat to Quebec is defeated, Montcalm can divert troops back to upstate New York which the British would have to most likely abandon since the French had destroyed their fortifications the previous year, making them untenable. They would have to fall back to their forts south of Lake Champlain, making Albany (I believe it was the capital of New York at this time) under threat. If Albany is under threat, the English would divert troops from Western New York and send them east, making Fort Niagra untenable (especially since the Seneca in that area were mostly loyal to the French even though most Iroquois were neutral or pro British). So, a French victory at Quebec arguably means subsequent victories in Upstate New York and Western New York.

The Ohio River Valley is a different story. Fort Pitt is still under construction at this point, and I believe most British soldiers who had been fighting in this area had been deployed to different fronts so its pretty vulnerable, especially since its so far in the frontier. That being said though, the French in this area are also very weak. What depends on the success of both sides in this region is the loyalty of the Native Americans of the Ohio Valley. Up to this point, they were pro French. However, after their aggression towards the British ended once the French lost Fort Duquense (at least until Pontiac's Rebellion). So this area would be fifty fifty id say.

Another thing we need to consider is with the loss of so many troops at Quebec, the English will definitely have there hands full when the Cherokee declare war on them in 1760.

Also demographics don't matter when every single Native American likes you more than the English. Combine that with the American Revolution which effectively means A America against France by itself or A Great Britain that beats America and is in mass debt and unable to really wage an effective war against the French for several decades which allows more French colonization and the ability for Native American populations to rebuild.
 
Last edited:
but the French weren't winning the 7 years war on the NA battlefield. they were on a long slow decline, being pushed back everywhere. Quebec was simply the nail that made it obvious that coffin lid was nailed shut. Britain has to lose big time elsewhere to cough up the Ohio Valley. that's what the war was all about. Louisbourg possibly would be given back.
no one really settled the region between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, but overall, the British had the upper hand in trading. both British and French had their niches carved out, but overall, the British were on the ascendancy in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama, portions of Mississippi. They'll give up Louisbourg because it's too much of a symbol to France, but retain the rights to most everything east of the Mississippi. That spells disaster for French holdings west of the Mississippi, which is why they so readily gave up the region to Spain.

even sans Quebec, there is no stalemate or return to status quo in NA unless France wins big elsewhere. A stalemate elsewhere means France has to give up the Ohio Valley and all points south of the Ohio/east of the Mississippi.
 
ben,
it's a little bit of hyperbole to say every native liked the french more than the british. both sides had their stronghold niches, but overall, most natives liked whomever was better at the moment. Plenty of natives liked the british better than the French. and plenty of them were more than willing to switch sides at a moment's notice.
 
additionally, ben,
I'm curious as to the logistics of the French going on the offensive in NY, when the St Lawrence, Acadia, pretty much the entire seaboard is in British control. how are these men and resources going to get to the army from France? how does France get the guns/trinkets/etc to pay tribute to the natives (which the prime reason the natives put up with the French - French paid tribute. after the war, the British didn't)? By this point in the war, the natives were abandoning France for various reasons, including lack of tribute. they didn't take up arms against the French, but increasingly, they weren't taking up arms for either.

no, by the end of 1759, with or without quebec, the only way French fortunes would revive is on other continents.
 
Shouldnt New France have increased it demographics a bit earlier, I mean that by the time of the 7 years war the difference was so big I doubt France could resister later wars easily. Maybe a POD in 1700 would help with that.

I thought an interesting timeline idea would be for Louis XIV to avoid acting belligerently in 1700 and come to a resolution with Austria over the Spanish succession. With a Bourbon on the throne in Spain, France is no longer encircled by Hapsburg possessions and is more secure in Europe. Louis then begins to take a stronger interest in France's burgeoning overseas possessions and increases his recruitment of settlers. France also maintains control of peninsular Acadia, since there is no war against the British.
 
wasn't the whole issue of the Spanish succession that Austria wouldn't accept a Bourbon and France wouldn't accept a Hapsburg? kinda hard to avoid that.

I'm thinking that if Louis didn't get such a hard on for the netherlands that he engaged in 3 or 4 wars between 1668 and mid 1690's, he'd have had plenty of resources and men (including the million or so that died in the famine in the early 90's - can't butterfly nature, but you can butterfly the ability to deal with it) to send to the new world.

a butterfly effect is that by increasing a settler mentality, you also increase native resistance to those settlers.
 

ben0628

Banned
ben,
it's a little bit of hyperbole to say every native liked the french more than the british. both sides had their stronghold niches, but overall, most natives liked whomever was better at the moment. Plenty of natives liked the british better than the French. and plenty of them were more than willing to switch sides at a moment's notice.

I might have over exaggerated but I have a point none the less. Pretty much all Native Americans in Canada, Northern New England, and the Ohio Valley supported the French or at least liked them more. The Iroquois were really the only ones that were pro British but they were pretty much neutral for the majority of the war and the Senecas also fought for the French. The Cherokee were not happy with the British either although they traded mostly with them and the Creek were neutral.

additionally, ben,
I'm curious as to the logistics of the French going on the offensive in NY, when the St Lawrence, Acadia, pretty much the entire seaboard is in British control. how are these men and resources going to get to the army from France? how does France get the guns/trinkets/etc to pay tribute to the natives (which the prime reason the natives put up with the French - French paid tribute. after the war, the British didn't)? By this point in the war, the natives were abandoning France for various reasons, including lack of tribute. they didn't take up arms against the French, but increasingly, they weren't taking up arms for either.

no, by the end of 1759, with or without quebec, the only way French fortunes would revive is on other continents.

With a French victory at Quebec, the entire St Lawrence west of the city is under French control. Also, although pushed out of Upstate new York, the French still have a significant presence in Canada south of the St. Lawrence and can travel up one of the St. Lawrence's tributaries the entire way to Lake Champlain so an invasion of Upstate New York is logistically possible. As for supplies, as previously said, ships full of supplies and troops were actually on there way to Canada in the spring of 1760 but couldn't get there because the British ships supplying the Quebec garrison got there first. With the destruction of Wolfe's army and French victory at Quebec, the British fleet would have to wait for a new invasion force to be created before going at Quebec again, allowing for the French ships to make it first.
 
wasn't the whole issue of the Spanish succession that Austria wouldn't accept a Bourbon and France wouldn't accept a Hapsburg? kinda hard to avoid that.

Yes, but it did not have to be the long, general European conflict that it became. Britain and the Netherlands did not want to fight France again but were antagonized by Louis's actions (stationing troops in the Spanish Netherlands, recognizing the Old Pretender, etc.). Austria would still declare war, but without allies, it would probably recognize quickly that removing Philippe d'Anjou from the Spanish throne was a lost cause and push instead for compensation in Italy.

I'm thinking that if Louis didn't get such a hard on for the netherlands that he engaged in 3 or 4 wars between 1668 and mid 1690's, he'd have had plenty of resources and men (including the million or so that died in the famine in the early 90's - can't butterfly nature, but you can butterfly the ability to deal with it) to send to the new world.

I think those wars are harder to butterfly away. It made some sense for France to want to annex the Spanish Netherlands and Franche-Comté, to break up the Haspburg encirclement. Perhaps if the Franco-Dutch alliance can be maintained, France can conquer what it wants in one war instead of fighting several.
 
Last edited:
Top