What if France won the global 7 Years War, when would BNA colonists "Texas" Across the Appalachians?

[Indicus]

Because if that doesn't happen, the original inhabitants population and culture still dominates and therefore it's still basically the same society.

India drastically changed under British rule. For one, the cities of Chennai, Mumbai, and Calcutta were all founded around British trading posts, and they are today some of the most populous Indian cities. In addition, India is lightly Anglicized under British rule, the way India looks at its history is essentially the same as what Britain did, the government system is very British, Indo-Islamic culture has fell into a drastic decline in much of India due to British rule, the Devanagari script was revitalized under British rule, etc.

What I'm basically saying is why was India not actually settled like North America and Australia were? Was India too advanced?

India was too populous, its population was immune to the European diseases, it was fairly developed, take your pick.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

What kind of fur-bearing animals were in Louisiana, and were these farmed or trapped. If they were farmed, were they based of a previously feral native population?

Mink still inhabit the area for the length of the former French Louisiane, both haute and basse.

 

[2fistedhistory]

As far as Louisianan economics are concerned, between 1720 and 1723, Pierre Charlevoix was given a Royal Commission to survey French North America and try to read the Pacific. He traveled from Quebec across the Great Lakes, mapped parts of the Missouri, and the Missouri. By the time his report was published, I think the French finally had an idea of what they really had (amazing tracks of farmland, for example). Unfortunately too late as only a few decades later they'd lose it in the Seven Years War.

I recommend Charlevoix's works, but I wouldn't get the ECCO versions through Amazon. The copy job is horrible (imagine using a mimeograph machine to make a copy of a copy of a copy. Seriously, with the original work, I could take it to Kinko's and get a cleaner version. :^P).

 

[Historyman 14]

Numbers don't lie. In the mid 1700s? New France only had about 70,000 vs 1.2 million British American Colonists. (450,000 in New England alone in 1760.)

So, nothing is stopping wave after wave of British Americans crossing the mountains West up to the Mississippi, taking to take over land and resources from the French, and Paris would have no way of stopping it. Send in the military? There is no roads, no infrastructure besides New Orleans, St. Louis and a few other forts and towns. So get ready for several British Ameeican States to pop up. (With London backing.)

The fact the Chickasaw, Cherokee and Creek would still be English allies and would still rise hell for France is something to talk.

Spain's days as a colonial empire will still be coming to a end, has been since the Armada got sent to the bottom of the sea off Ireland. This will help.

And nothing is stopping Paris other screwed ups in the 18th century, even with a victory in the Seven Years War. Won't stop its Kings and leaders from screwing up France's position of a world power somehow (They find a way.) and thus leading to a Revolution in Europe.

Biggest question is does these new English states stay loyal to London, or do their own thing.

 

[Avrorrange]

Numbers don't lie. In the mid 1700s? New France only had about 70,000 vs 1.2 million British American Colonists. (450,000 in New England alone in 1760.)

So, nothing is stopping wave after wave of British Americans crossing the mountains West up to the Mississippi, taking to take over land and resources from the French, and Paris would have no way of stopping it. Send in the military? There is no roads, no infrastructure besides New Orleans, St. Louis and a few other forts and towns. So get ready for several British Ameeican States to pop up. (With London backing.)

The fact the Chickasaw, Cherokee and Creek would still be English allies and would still rise hell for France is something to talk.

Spain's days as a colonial empire will still be coming to a end, has been since the Armada got sent to the bottom of the sea off Ireland. This will help.

And nothing is stopping Paris other screwed ups in the 18th century, even with a victory in the Seven Years War. Won't stop its Kings and leaders from screwing up France's position of a world power somehow (They find a way.) and thus leading to a Revolution in Europe.

Biggest question is does these new English states stay loyal to London, or do their own thing.

The preservation of the North American colonies will probably be what preserves the Ancien Regime.France was clearly suffering from the effects of overpopulation--it's basically the number one trigger as to why the revolution broke out.With the North American colonies,they will find a place to pump the excess population to.

Plus,if France got a large part of India,it's gonna get a lot of $$--which would mean a capable military.

As for Spain's days as a colonial empire,Spain's empire has endured more than two centuries after Gravelines.It's far from out yet in the 1700s.

 

[Historyman 14]

The preservation of the North American colonies will probably be what preserves the Ancien Regime. France was clearly suffering from the effects of overpopulation--it's basically the number one trigger as to why the revolution broke out.With the North American colonies,they will find a place to pump the excess population to.

Plus,if France got a large part of India,it's gonna get a lot of $$--which would mean a capable military.

As for Spain's days as a colonial empire,Spain's empire has endured more than two centuries after Gravelines.It's far from out yet in the 1700s.

But it was not France's MO. Settlers was a distant secondary priority, they cared far more about the fur trade and sugar. And it takes time and money to get settlers across the sea while the British Americans are right there and still moving West in waves, more so without London trying order them not too.

Spain tried it with New Orleans. Did not take so well.

Trust me. Give time for France and Spain to ruined themselves. Over population was not the sole reason for the Ancien Regime going up in smoke. France had a lot of problems before the Seven Years War. Winning does them a lot of good, but it won't fix everything and might things worst overall if outgrowns itself, or suffers a horrible backfiring event.

And if France is so busy in India, Africa and Asia, they won't have time for the Americans so much.

 

[Avrorrange]

But it was not France's MO. Settlers was a distant secondary priority, they cared far more about the fur trade and sugar. And it takes time and money to get settlers across the sea while the British Americans are right there and still moving West in waves, no say without London trying order them not too.

Spain tried it with New Orleans. Did not take so well.

Trust me. Give time for France and Spain to ruined themselves. Over population was not the sole reason for the Ancien Regime going up in smoke. France had a lot of problems before the Seven Years War. Winning does them a lot of good, but it won't fix everything and might things worst overall if outgrowns itself, or suffers a horrible backfiring event.

And if France is so busy in India, Africa and Asia, they won't have time for the Americans so much.

I'm not sure if it was this thread or the other thread(which is something called more populated New France I think),but @John7755 يوحنا discussed brilliantly that the Louisiana region was in fact much more effective at producing sugar than France's Caribbean colonies and that Louisiana was badly mismanaged by France.Either him or some other guy also made the point that the French elite only realized during the 1700s that Louisiana was actually an excellent place for an agricultural colony and that they did not have time to effectively settle the region before they lost it.

 

[unprincipled peter]

I believe John's argument was that LA was capable of growing sugar, not that it was superior. the islands have a superior climate (those few degrees of latitude make a difference). it took the Spanish a couple decades to successfully adapt sugar.

That doesn't mean the region wasn't good for profitable agriculture, and includes the entire Mississippi watershed.

with no toehold west of the appalachians, the english will NOT be able to flood the region. english land companies can't set up shop, and the individuals are going to lack any protection from the Indians and French. given time, french population will rise til it reaches a point of being capable of self preservation. Look how well they did OTL with minimal French support and maximum English opposition. Double that size, and the english can be kept at bay.

There's too many differences between this TTL and OTL, that you can't simply assume the english can pull a "Texas" whenever and wherever they want.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I believe John's argument was that LA was capable of growing sugar, not that it was superior. the islands have a superior climate (those few degrees of latitude make a difference). it took the Spanish a couple decades to successfully adapt sugar.

That doesn't mean the region wasn't good for profitable agriculture, and includes the entire Mississippi watershed.

with no toehold west of the appalachians, the english will NOT be able to flood the region. english land companies can't set up shop, and the individuals are going to lack any protection from the Indians and French. given time, french population will rise til it reaches a point of being capable of self preservation. Look how well they did OTL with minimal French support and maximum English opposition. Double that size, and the english can be kept at bay.

There's too many differences between this TTL and OTL, that you can't simply assume the english can pull a "Texas" whenever and wherever they want.

I did mention though, that Louisiana currently and in the 1800s, outproduced Haiti/Saint-Domingue in terms of sugar production. The French governance did not try to grow sugar, despite its affinity in the area, whereas Spain did and successfully grew sugar on the Île d'Orléans, beginning a trend that continues today of mass sugar growing throughout the state that extends into nearby Arkansas. Mind you, when I say that Louisiana outproduced the Caribbean islands individually, I don't mean slightly, I mean by multiples.

The multiple is nearly 3x the amount of raw sugar, with Louisiana producing 13 million tonnage in 2016 and Haiti only around 4 million tons. Do realize, this is with 24% of the state in farms for Louisiana, with 1/3 being for sugar cane. This can be exponentially higher, for a colony. Haiti on the other hand, has 70% farmland and several million more people involved with sugar cultivation and still do not produce the same amount. Do understand, I am not speaking of sugar after becoming crystallized, I speak of actual raw sugar cane production.

EDIT: Nearby Dominican Republic has dropped greatly in its production lately, however, they have lagged greatly behind Louisiana in sugarcane. In 1990, they produced 7,2 million tons, with possibly 44% of agricultural land. Cuba in the 1950s, was producing 8,6 million tons, with it having the highest yield in the Caribbean, with 32% land used.

 

[unprincipled peter]

I'm certainly no expert, and am only slightly/moderately arguing the point, but it's Saturday, and it's either this or mow the lawn, so...

I don't think it is particularly fair to compare output of (1800's) an economy completely ravaged by political/social upheaval or modern agriculture vs third world economies.

sugar is, I believe a soil destructive crop, so it would also make sense that the places of earliest cultivation in third world situations could also be soil played out with a lower yield.

I don't deny that Louisiana is suitable for sugar, but there's a reason it was relatively last to be developed for sugar cultivation, and also a reason that the US uses import controls to prop up domestic sugar production over cheaper imports. there is little reason it couldn't have been exploited earlier, but there are also reasons it wasn't. some of that reason could be political or the French screwing up. I just think you're over selling it as being a mecca of sugar production. it wasn't sheer stupidity that had early colonial sugar cultivation concentrating on the islands and no one thought of cultivating on the main land. But absolutely, with the right resolve, the region could have been developed earlier for sugar, and other agro industry.

edit, and as I keep pointing out, the industry in LA was not an overnight success. It took a generation to adapt to LA conditions.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I'm certainly no expert, and am only slightly/moderately arguing the point, but it's Saturday, and it's either this or mow the lawn, so...

I don't think it is particularly fair to compare output of (1800's) an economy completely ravaged by political/social upheaval or modern agriculture vs third world economies.

sugar is, I believe a soil destructive crop, so it would also make sense that the places of earliest cultivation in third world situations could also be soil played out with a lower yield.

I don't deny that Louisiana is suitable for sugar, but there's a reason it was relatively last to be developed for sugar cultivation, and also a reason that the US uses import controls to prop up domestic sugar production over cheaper imports. there is little reason it couldn't have been exploited earlier, but there are also reasons it wasn't. some of that reason could be political or the French screwing up. I just think you're over selling it as being a mecca of sugar production. it wasn't sheer stupidity that had early colonial sugar cultivation concentrating on the islands and no one thought of cultivating on the main land. But absolutely, with the right resolve, the region could have been developed earlier for sugar, and other agro industry.

edit, and as I keep pointing out, the industry in LA was not an overnight success. It took a generation to adapt to LA conditions.

Right, I am not saying it is either. However, my argument was, it could be a source of sugar production and thus been viable for rapid colonial growth post 7 years war.

Also do note, Brazil has been growing sugar at intense levels in relatively the same areas for as long as Cuba. Yet, their production goes up nearly every year.

By the way, being a third world country does not affect the raw growth of sugar cane which is not dependent upon industry. It is only dependent on the quality of land and the numbers used to grow. Nations of the middle age produced massive amounts of agriculture without industry, and lived in conditions far worse than the so called third world. As well, it is incorrect, in my opinion, to say Cuba is third world compared to Louisiana in the 1800s. Pre civil war Louisiana was not too much different from a place like Cuba all things considered.

 

[Avrorrange]

I'm certainly no expert, and am only slightly/moderately arguing the point, but it's Saturday, and it's either this or mow the lawn, so...

I don't think it is particularly fair to compare output of (1800's) an economy completely ravaged by political/social upheaval or modern agriculture vs third world economies.

sugar is, I believe a soil destructive crop, so it would also make sense that the places of earliest cultivation in third world situations could also be soil played out with a lower yield.

I don't deny that Louisiana is suitable for sugar, but there's a reason it was relatively last to be developed for sugar cultivation, and also a reason that the US uses import controls to prop up domestic sugar production over cheaper imports. there is little reason it couldn't have been exploited earlier, but there are also reasons it wasn't. some of that reason could be political or the French screwing up. I just think you're over selling it as being a mecca of sugar production. it wasn't sheer stupidity that had early colonial sugar cultivation concentrating on the islands and no one thought of cultivating on the main land. But absolutely, with the right resolve, the region could have been developed earlier for sugar, and other agro industry.

edit, and as I keep pointing out, the industry in LA was not an overnight success. It took a generation to adapt to LA conditions.

No colony was built overnight either.

 

[Fed]

By who? Sure, the American Indians--Cherokee, Shawnee, etc.--will win a few rounds, but they can't keep winning all the time.

Native Americans would easily beat any small groups of settlers coming in, and any large groups would be considered an invasion by France and would be dealt with appropriately.

Numbers don't lie. In the mid 1700s? New France only had about 70,000 vs 1.2 million British American Colonists. (450,000 in New England alone in 1760.)

So, nothing is stopping wave after wave of British Americans crossing the mountains West up to the Mississippi, taking to take over land and resources from the French, and Paris would have no way of stopping it. Send in the military? There is no roads, no infrastructure besides New Orleans, St. Louis and a few other forts and towns. So get ready for several British Ameeican States to pop up. (With London backing.)

The fact the Chickasaw, Cherokee and Creek would still be English allies and would still rise hell for France is something to talk.

Spain's days as a colonial empire will still be coming to a end, has been since the Armada got sent to the bottom of the sea off Ireland. This will help.

And nothing is stopping Paris other screwed ups in the 18th century, even with a victory in the Seven Years War. Won't stop its Kings and leaders from screwing up France's position of a world power somehow (They find a way.) and thus leading to a Revolution in Europe.

Biggest question is does these new English states stay loyal to London, or do their own thing.

There's this perception that every single one of the millions of Americans would want to move west into a completely hostile environment without any Acts supporting westward expansion. The fact that Americans were happy staying east of the Appalachians almost two hundred years until the US government started supporting settling of Ohio speaks differently. At most, the number of people willing to venture west when they have no reason to would be roughly equivalent to the number of French people already in New France.

Especially because there's plenty of Native states that would be staunch French allies, even more as they discovered British treaties couldn't be trusted. Do you think that after settlers started stirring up trouble with the Cherokee or the Iroquois, they'd still be BFFs of the UK?

And seriously, saying that Spain's days were coming to an end for the entirety of Spain's colonial venture (the Armada sank in 1588, a full two hundred years before the Seven Years War) is insane. Spain's days as a colonial power were ended by Revolutions that would be butterflied if the French won the Seven Years War.

All this 'the US is inevitably destined to own all of North America' is a fake and tired AH trope. The only historical examples for the 'Colonial American states' are completely different from this situation - Mexico invited Americans into Texas (and even then only a couple thousand bothered to move in while it wasn't American territory - even when Mexico fully supported Texian endeavours up until the point where they tried to make slavery legal in Mexico). West Florida was a British colony with major ground disagreements with Spain, which Britain tried to solve by encouraging migration there as well. A French Louisiana and Ohio would try to expel every colonist that tried to move there from Britain - and would most likely succeed.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Fedelede
I liked your post, but the 'americans' weren't happily staying east. they were looking to start Vandalia and Charlottes (something or other) and the traders went to the mississippi. it's true the settlers hadn't reached the edges of the disputed territory, but sans a hard line drawn in the map, you can bet they're looking west. the rest of the post is spot on. Winning the war puts that hard line on the map, and that changes a lot. they're still going to be looking west if France doesn't make moves to fill it. the ability for them to get there and do anything with it is definitely a lot, lot harder, but the desire is there (though granted the desire was only in the infancy stage prior to the war). I think a lot of folk looking at western land are going to not have such hard feelings about living in a papist state if France allows freedom of religion, or becoming Catholic if France doesn't.

 

[Just a Rube]

Anglo-Americans had been trying to move west basically from as soon as they set foot in North America; there's a reason George Washington was in the area to touch off the 7YW, and it wasn't because he was sight-seeing. Likewise, the reason that essentially every treaty signed between the colonists (and later the US) and the natives fell apart was because the colonists kept violating the treaty and encroaching on territory that they had supposedly given up. You can draw whatever lines on a map you want back in London/Paris, it doesn't affect the people on the ground (since in practice neither the British nor the French had control of the region, nor particularly accurate maps thereof). People will settle, there will be conflicts with the natives, and a few photogenic massacres to inflame the local colonial government (or just particularly ambitious colonists) to put together a militia force and launch a "punitive" expedition. Fight a few battles, sign a treaty with the natives (who also have no reason to pay any attention to the lines drawn on a map somewhere in Europe), establish a fortified outpost that becomes a significant trade post, and then rinse and repeat, expanding as before. It's how things went before the 7YW, it's how things went after the 7YW, it's not like a military victory (which is almost certainly going to be less decisive than people seem to be envisaging, because the French don't have the numbers or capacity for a massive, overwhelming victory over the English colonies in North America; their strategy tended to be "fight to a draw in the colonies and make up for it with victories in Europe/India to win concessions that way") is going to change things too much.

As for the treaty "settling" things; keep in mind that the UK and France had found themselves at war every couple decades throughout the 1688-1815 period, and each of those wars had seen significant conflicts in North America. Even if the treaty says "absolutely no Brits west of the Appalachians" and the French and their allies somehow enforce it, that's going to be up for grabs the next time the British and French come to blows, and French forts are going to be an obvious target for British offensives when that happens.

 

[Wallet]

English speakers are going to eventually control all areas east of the Rockies damn the results of any war.

It's damn near impossible keeping them out of Alaska, California, or Texas. Either British or American, the Mississippi River basin will be English speaking regardless of anything the French do. Period

 

[Avrorrange]

English speakers are going to eventually control all areas east of the Rockies damn the results of any war.

It's damn near impossible keeping them out of Alaska, California, or Texas. Either British or American, the Mississippi River basin will be English speaking regardless of anything the French do. Period

I can totally see periodic joint Franco-native expeditions to wipe out Anglo settlements before any of them gets too large.

 

[Wallet]

I can totally see periodic joint Franco-native expeditions to wipe out Anglo settlements before any of them gets too large.

France of what era? Before the American revolution they never had enough people or troops in the New World to wipe out anyone. Or are you talking about bankrupt France? Or revolutionary France? Or France dealing with the Haiti revolution? Or Napoleonic France fighting all of Europe?

FWI, the British will not tolerate attacks on Angols, on their soil or not.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

English speakers are going to eventually control all areas east of the Rockies damn the results of any war.

It's damn near impossible keeping them out of Alaska, California, or Texas. Either British or American, the Mississippi River basin will be English speaking regardless of anything the French do. Period

I do not think this is entirely correct... However, you seem to be somewhat bias in terms of your Anglophilia to see any alternative other than massive English speaking American continent.

 

[Fed]

Fedelede
I liked your post, but the 'americans' weren't happily staying east. they were looking to start Vandalia and Charlottes (something or other) and the traders went to the mississippi. it's true the settlers hadn't reached the edges of the disputed territory, but sans a hard line drawn in the map, you can bet they're looking west. the rest of the post is spot on. Winning the war puts that hard line on the map, and that changes a lot. they're still going to be looking west if France doesn't make moves to fill it. the ability for them to get there and do anything with it is definitely a lot, lot harder, but the desire is there (though granted the desire was only in the infancy stage prior to the war). I think a lot of folk looking at western land are going to not have such hard feelings about living in a papist state if France allows freedom of religion, or becoming Catholic if France doesn't.

Any attempt at a "fourteenth colony" was proposed at the very tail end of British rule, after the Seven Years' War, when the territory was nominally theirs (usually Virginian). And it should be noted that they looked for British chartering before settling West Virginia - that's because they needed State support at spreading west.

Americans weren't really all that fond of heading west into hostile territory. Westward expansion was only really encouraged by homestead acts that gave poor peasants land - peasants wouldn't be interested in working farms that will be torn down by natives or Frenchmen as soon as they see it.

There's a reason why there weren't any Texas-style colonial states in the Canadian Prairies and that the fillibuster states in Chihuahua and Baja were so short-lived and had no American settling. And it's not because God magically ordained American settlers to stop at the 49th Parallel.

Anglo-Americans had been trying to move west basically from as soon as they set foot in North America; there's a reason George Washington was in the area to touch off the 7YW, and it wasn't because he was sight-seeing. Likewise, the reason that essentially every treaty signed between the colonists (and later the US) and the natives fell apart was because the colonists kept violating the treaty and encroaching on territory that they had supposedly given up. You can draw whatever lines on a map you want back in London/Paris, it doesn't affect the people on the ground (since in practice neither the British nor the French had control of the region, nor particularly accurate maps thereof). People will settle, there will be conflicts with the natives, and a few photogenic massacres to inflame the local colonial government (or just particularly ambitious colonists) to put together a militia force and launch a "punitive" expedition. Fight a few battles, sign a treaty with the natives (who also have no reason to pay any attention to the lines drawn on a map somewhere in Europe), establish a fortified outpost that becomes a significant trade post, and then rinse and repeat, expanding as before. It's how things went before the 7YW, it's how things went after the 7YW, it's not like a military victory (which is almost certainly going to be less decisive than people seem to be envisaging, because the French don't have the numbers or capacity for a massive, overwhelming victory over the English colonies in North America; their strategy tended to be "fight to a draw in the colonies and make up for it with victories in Europe/India to win concessions that way") is going to change things too much.

As for the treaty "settling" things; keep in mind that the UK and France had found themselves at war every couple decades throughout the 1688-1815 period, and each of those wars had seen significant conflicts in North America. Even if the treaty says "absolutely no Brits west of the Appalachians" and the French and their allies somehow enforce it, that's going to be up for grabs the next time the British and French come to blows, and French forts are going to be an obvious target for British offensives when that happens.

People won't settle if they know that it'll, at best, trigger a warlike response from the natives and, at worse, trigger another conflict with France. Especially if the conflict is in French territory and the British won't consider it as an agression.

And the French beating the British in the Seven Years' War means that the British wouldn't find it as easy as you make it out to be to take out French fronts. Especially once settlers start creating conflict with organised Native structures in territory that is recognised as British and suddenly those pro-British tribes in Ohio and New York aren't so pro-British after all. I find it hard to see how the Americans would be able to stream across the West when even the Iroquois are against them and any incursion west of the Ohio River is considered an act of war by a great power.

I honestly think that there's an extremely strong pro-American bias here that makes it look like Westward expansion is inevitable and unstoppable.