What if England established enduring Gulf Coast colonies before France?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Some Englishmen had a concept of doing this, referring to the Gulf Coast as "Carolana" or at least the further parts of Carolana/Carolina.

It is notable that French exploration all the way down the Mississippi and establishment of Gulf Coast settlements Biloxi-1698, Mobile-1702, New Orleans-1718, came rather late compared to both French Canada and most English Atlantic colonies. Even Spanish Pensacola in Florisa was not permanently founded until 1698.

It seems to me that if you have restoration England put a little more emphasis on it, it could get established in the Gulf Coast first.

What effects would this have on colonial development, with the British colonists "jumping" the Appalachians barrier over 60 years earlier than OTL, and controlling the mouth of the Mississippi?
 
It would make the western settlements more profitable, but they just didn't have enough people until after the Revolution to make a difference.
This will probably speed up the growth of Slave Power, and I don't think those "gulf colonies" would care to revolt.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
This will probably speed up the growth of Slave Power, and I don't think those "gulf colonies" would care to revolt

Why not? Georgia (barely) cared to revolt and it was only established in the 1730s. These colonies are established closer in time to the Carolinas.

If the Gulf Colonies remain loyal, then it does not augment slave power within the United States sphere, but in the British North American sphere.
 
How much would England colonise the Illinois Country? Would it be initially French dominated until the English push the French out?

Still, the region will develop a highly different culture and mindset than the Atlantic colonies. If it becomes independent (probably in the sense of Canada than anything else), it will certainly be separate from the country on the other side of the Appalachians. And it likely will also be separate from the Illinois Country, where the land is not conducive to slavery outside of the Missouri valley and thus will have obvious differences from the colony in the south.

If the United States still revolts and wins (somehow), then the border will be set at the Appalachians. The United States will almost certainly be far richer, given the burgeoning industries and most importantly in the 18th century, more mature slave plantations in the Carolinas and Virginia. It will likely have more population, and as the US develops, will attract more immigration. The Gulf Coast/interior colonies will be far more agrarian and dominated by slave power interests, unless Illinois Country is split from the Gulf Coast, which is possible, if the British have some sense of administration, but they could easily federate again (with or without Canada, assuming it still falls to the British in the Seven Years War).

Relations with the Spanish should be interesting. One thing's for sure--Spanish Texas is going to get a whole lot smaller once the British are in firm control of the Mississippi. Spain's claims in Tejas are too broad yet with so little control on the ground that it will be very easy for the British to demand most of the region (including the Texas Gulf Coast) in peace deals. I'm sure enough guns and other supplies to the Comanche would be enough for Spain to get the point. That said, the British don't have reason to conquer New Mexico/Arizona, and California, if conquered, would be part of a separate colony than the Mississippi valley, although again, it can federate with the other British North American colonies if it needs to. British control is somewhat likely, I would say, given that in California, be it Spanish or Mexican, a significant portion of the settlers and traders will likely be British or British North American and thus Britain can easily pull some shenanigans to get Spain/Mexico to transfer California to them (debt forgiveness, etc.), if not outright conquer the place.
 
It would make the western settlements more profitable, but they just didn't have enough people until after the Revolution to make a difference.
This will probably speed up the growth of Slave Power, and I don't think those "gulf colonies" would care to revolt.
Why not? Georgia (barely) cared to revolt and it was only established in the 1730s. These colonies are established closer in time to the Carolinas.

If the Gulf Colonies remain loyal, then it does not augment slave power within the United States sphere, but in the British North American sphere.
I should have structured that sentence better. If the "Gulf Colonies" are included in the United States they will add to the earlier growth of Slave Power. However, I don't think they will actively want to revolt because they will depend on British influence to keep the Spanish away. The "Gulf Colonies" will also want to expand against the Creek and Choctaws.
 
How much would England colonise the Illinois Country? Would it be initially French dominated until the English push the French out?

Still, the region will develop a highly different culture and mindset than the Atlantic colonies. If it becomes independent (probably in the sense of Canada than anything else), it will certainly be separate from the country on the other side of the Appalachians. And it likely will also be separate from the Illinois Country, where the land is not conducive to slavery outside of the Missouri valley and thus will have obvious differences from the colony in the south.

If the United States still revolts and wins (somehow), then the border will be set at the Appalachians. The United States will almost certainly be far richer, given the burgeoning industries and most importantly in the 18th century, more mature slave plantations in the Carolinas and Virginia. It will likely have more population, and as the US develops, will attract more immigration. The Gulf Coast/interior colonies will be far more agrarian and dominated by slave power interests, unless Illinois Country is split from the Gulf Coast, which is possible, if the British have some sense of administration, but they could easily federate again (with or without Canada, assuming it still falls to the British in the Seven Years War).

Relations with the Spanish should be interesting. One thing's for sure--Spanish Texas is going to get a whole lot smaller once the British are in firm control of the Mississippi. Spain's claims in Tejas are too broad yet with so little control on the ground that it will be very easy for the British to demand most of the region (including the Texas Gulf Coast) in peace deals. I'm sure enough guns and other supplies to the Comanche would be enough for Spain to get the point. That said, the British don't have reason to conquer New Mexico/Arizona, and California, if conquered, would be part of a separate colony than the Mississippi valley, although again, it can federate with the other British North American colonies if it needs to. British control is somewhat likely, I would say, given that in California, be it Spanish or Mexican, a significant portion of the settlers and traders will likely be British or British North American and thus Britain can easily pull some shenanigans to get Spain/Mexico to transfer California to them (debt forgiveness, etc.), if not outright conquer the place.
There weren't enough British settlers to definitively contest the Iroquois, Cherokee, and Creek pre-Revolution. There won't be anywhere enough people to drive out the tribes that would makeup the Western Confederacy and Tecumseh's Confederacy.
 
Yeah, the Five Civilised Tribes will be a huge problem for "British Louisiana" (amongst other American Indian groups), especially since they will be very easy to persuade that the English mean no good and the French (or Spanish) can supply them plenty of weapons to fight. But outside of the South, Britain's other Indian allies can still be won over against France's Indian allies.

But for settlement, maybe you could have a larger exodus of poor whites from the Caribbean to settle in *Louisiana? Although the problem is whites from the Caribbean will probably end up being split between *Louisiana and the Carolinas/Virginia.
 
Top