Some vaguely Draka-related musings

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.
 
Something else of interesting consideration; the evolution of slavery in these "Boer" states. Without significant coastal access, there isn't a continuing flow of African slaves. Would they choose to instead start enslaving Native Americans? Or would they simply "cultivate", as sickening as the concept is, the African slave population they brought with them?
 
As far as the slavery-related issue is concerned, we probably need to nail down just when the French occupation of the coast takes place and where the bulk of the "Boers" come from.

I imagine a significant proportion of these "Boers" will be from New England, as they've got the biggest ideological axe to grind with Catholicism.

However, the Catholic Church could put pressure on slave owners and local governments to treat slaves more decently in a way the local Protestant churches (probably staffed by such people) could not. Some research indicates this was the case in at least some of the French and Spanish Caribbean holdings.

(Although it obviously wasn't the case in Haiti, based on how disgustingly brutal the planter class was there)

Perhaps the northern branch of the "Boers" hold few slaves and ultimately abandon the practice, while the southern branch have more slaves. Actively taking slaves beyond the Appalachians could prove troublesome, so they might enslave Native Americans to compensate (which could lead to trouble with the tribes) or buy slaves from the French-controlled coast, probably at a markup.

(If the Church takes an interest in the situation, it might push for the sale of slaves to the especially-brutal heretics beyond the mountains to cease, which could make things more interesting)
 
If the French do decide to move against the "Boers," what would their axes of attack be?

I'm thinking the St. Lawrence River, the Mississippi (via New Orleans), and through the Appalachian passes. The latter would give the Boers an opportunity to pul a Thermopylae, with local Indians standing in for Ephialtes.

(Which could provoke a nasty revenge should the Boers defeat the French.)
 
Here's an idea:

The northern branch of "Boers" settle in the states governed by OTL's "Northwest Ordinance"--Ohio and the like.

The southern branch, coming out of Georgia, the Carolinas, etc. could settle in a zone encompassing Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. For some reason, I'm imagining them founding the city of Mobile as their port, although the French or Spanish might have something to say about that.

If we want to make the "American Boers" a Power in the future, the two branches could merge, perhaps after the southern branch abolishes slavery.

How large would the exodus or exoduses need to be in order to inflict the necessary military defeats of the Native Americans in the region?

It might be smaller that one would think due to the impact of European diseases on the Indian populations of the region, but I don't know for sure.
 
Top