I'm very intrigued in particular by the "American Boer" concept. Potentially of note with regards to their settlement and nominal independence is that the Appalachians and the Mississippi both provide natural buffers between the French 13 colonies and the "Boer" ("Farmer"?) settlement/states that might develop. As such, it is possible that it would take longer for the French to begin really expanding into the west and coming into conflict with these states, giving them more time to really develop and establish themselves.
Simultaneously, my understanding was that British annexation of the Boer states was at leas partially motivated by the diamond reserves that were discovered there. Besides land (and not very arable land at that point in history), what do these states really have that would make the French want them? If anything, it may be possible that the French would have a vested interest in leaving the states as they are, as they would likely provide a buffer between their East Coast possessions and the Native Americans.
Just some musings.
Simultaneously, my understanding was that British annexation of the Boer states was at leas partially motivated by the diamond reserves that were discovered there. Besides land (and not very arable land at that point in history), what do these states really have that would make the French want them? If anything, it may be possible that the French would have a vested interest in leaving the states as they are, as they would likely provide a buffer between their East Coast possessions and the Native Americans.
Just some musings.