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

If France won 7 Years War, when would Anglo-Americans "pull a Texas" over Trans-Appalachia

  • Never

    Votes: 45 38.8%
  • 1775

    Votes: 21 18.1%
  • 1785

    Votes: 6 5.2%
  • 1795

    Votes: 17 14.7%
  • 1805

    Votes: 13 11.2%
  • 1815

    Votes: 7 6.0%
  • 1825

    Votes: 7 6.0%

  • Total voters
    116
The Cherokee stayed hostile until the end of the 18th century OTL. Furthermore the war was started by the settlers and many leaders of the Cherokee had already turned to the French prior to the 7YW.
The Cherokee didn't really have a lot of feuds with the tribes north of the Ohio, that were the Iroquois.
The Ottawa and most other tribes around the Great lakes rebelled against the British after the 7YW so in any case they preferred the French over the British.
Some of the Ottawa and other tribes around the Great Lakes rebelled (others hedged their bets and remained neutral; the Ottawa settlement around Michilimackinac, for example, made a hefty profit acting as a middle man between the British and the hostile tribes). Pontiac's War had more to do with Anglo-Native relations once the French had been driven out (and especially the British upending of established gift-exchanges and general treatment of the natives as conquered subjects) than it did with loyalty to the French over the British. While the French had the upper hand in terms of loyalties (supported by a fairly substantial network of marriage ties between French traders and local leaders), there were always plenty of natives who were flirting with supporting the British. The aftermath of the Fort William-Henry Massacre, in particular, had led to most of France's native allies abandoning the cause; they would be less happy with France massively expanding its military presence in the aftermath.

As for the Cherokee; while they came into contact with the northern tribes less than the Iroquois did, there were still frequent back-and-forth raids by both sides (this was one of the things that had doomed earlier French attempts at cementing a broader pan-native alliance). Some Cherokee had flirted with the French beforehand (in much the same way as many of the French-aligned tribes of the north had flirted with the British before the war), but the final break didn't happen until fairly late in the war, and only after the British had noticeably gotten the upper hand. While there was definite hostility, the conflict itself had more or less come to an end by the end of the war, and only flared up again during the ARW (when the Cherokee found themselves having to choose between the British and the colonists anyway).

More broadly, it's a mistake to speak of any of the native groups as unified decision-makers; different members of the tribes could and did make different decisions, and they were made on the basis of their own interest, rather than the interests of Paris or London. The same can also be said of the European colonists; after all, it was Virginia, rather than the British Parliament, that made the decision to send out George Washington and provoke the French & Indian War in the first place.
France only used its forts for trade because the American push west was pretty much nonexistent prior to the 7YW so there was nothing else to do in the area yet, if suddenly Americans want to enter lands belonging to the French claim then France'd automatically do something (whether it's arming natives or building forts) to act against it or at the very least regulate it or try to use it to their advantage. And you don't seem to have realised it yet, but most of those strategic trading locations were also strategic military locations, especially when routes between those forts become some of the little infrastructure in the area.
They provide infrastructure, but trade and commerce is still very much dominated by the natives, who may have other opinions on British colonists (generally they were receptive to British traders but skeptical about full-fledged settlements; the same tended to apply to their attitude towards the French as well.
There were pretty much no Anglo-French Wars in the 18th century, they only wars they had then were all parts of large European conflicts, namely the Spanish Succession, Austrian Succession, 7YW and American Revolution. Furthermore if the war lasts anywhere as close as it did OTL then Great Britain would still be close to bankruptcy and would still have growing unrest in the 13 colonies so just starting a new war would be asking for trouble. And the British wouldn't be the only ones who learned from the 7YW, the French became well aware that their forts in g.e. the Ohio valley weren't educate for real warfare and that they needed more soldiers in the area (that's why after beating the British back they left Duquesne) so there's a big chance they'd replace the small wooden forts with actual structures (or at least the most important ones, like Duquesne, Presque Isle and Niagara) like when the British build fort Pitt. France doesn't need a local population, they just needed to expand the size of the Compagnies de la Marine and the navy and keep the natives friendly. Furthermore France could almost always count on its ally Spain, while Britain's ally the Netherlands was afraid of a French invasion and Prussian involvement could trigger intervention from Austria, Russia, Sweden, etc.
As noted, the difference between "Anglo-French Wars" and "Wars with France and Britain on opposite sides" isn't particularly relevant; what matters is that the various alliance webs of the 18th century tended to lead to wars (and if France truly emerges victorious from the 7YW and destroys Prussia, I'd expect at least one of Russia and Austria to form a rapprochement with the British to balance). Once one of these wars breaks out, Britain focusing on the colonies is almost a certainty (if only because it's one of the few places the British can reliably strike at the French), and the Royal Navy means that France will have difficulty resupplying its colonial forces (this was a serious problem for the French in the 7YW OTL), which in turn discourages them from investing too heavily in the colonies, because that's going to be taking away resources from the main theater of operations in Europe (French strategy had always been that any colonial losses could be made good with sufficient success in Europe; the 7YW merely saw them unable to make enough gains in Europe to counter the loss of most of their overseas possessions).

More broadly, this expanded set of garrisons is going to be extremely expensive, and the French finances were always worse than the British throughout the period. All to protect land that isn't going to be particular profitable to France anyway.
 
Some of the Ottawa and other tribes around the Great Lakes rebelled (others hedged their bets and remained neutral; the Ottawa settlement around Michilimackinac, for example, made a hefty profit acting as a middle man between the British and the hostile tribes). Pontiac's War had more to do with Anglo-Native relations once the French had been driven out (and especially the British upending of established gift-exchanges and general treatment of the natives as conquered subjects) than it did with loyalty to the French over the British. While the French had the upper hand in terms of loyalties (supported by a fairly substantial network of marriage ties between French traders and local leaders), there were always plenty of natives who were flirting with supporting the British. The aftermath of the Fort William-Henry Massacre, in particular, had led to most of France's native allies abandoning the cause; they would be less happy with France massively expanding its military presence in the aftermath.
Point remains that the French did a LOT to retain native alliances, they intermarried, granted gifts, etc. and because of that natives who "flirted" with the idea of supporting the British usually didn't do it in the end. Furthermore a considerable amount of the natives in the Ohio country gave their loyalty to the French pretty cheaply in wartime since they had recently been expelled from their homeland by the British, g.e. the Lenape.

As for the Cherokee; while they came into contact with the northern tribes less than the Iroquois did, there were still frequent back-and-forth raids by both sides (this was one of the things that had doomed earlier French attempts at cementing a broader pan-native alliance). Some Cherokee had flirted with the French beforehand (in much the same way as many of the French-aligned tribes of the north had flirted with the British before the war), but the final break didn't happen until fairly late in the war, and only after the British had noticeably gotten the upper hand. While there was definite hostility, the conflict itself had more or less come to an end by the end of the war, and only flared up again during the ARW (when the Cherokee found themselves having to choose between the British and the colonists anyway).
What killed it for the French early on was that the Cherokee at that point in time just happened to be at war with the Shawnee who the French had already allied. But by the time of the 7YW many prominent leaders of the Cherokee were aligned with the French, they didn't support the British when they attacked fort Duquesne and in fact were allowing the French to start building forts in their territory. Their commitment to the alliance was big enough to some tribes that were former enemies but also allied with the French, like the Muscogee Creek, came to those leaders' support. The Muscogee were in fact planning to form a great alliance south of the Ohio which included Cherokee but also the Shawnee (which, as mentioned before, had been enemies of the Cherokee too in the past). There was a clear change of sentiment going on among large parts of the Cherokee at the time. And all of that happened even BEFORE the Anglo-Cherokee war had officially broken out.
While we're at it, the same change of sentiment was also happening or had already happened among parts of the Iroquois, like the Seneca. France was crealy winning over some of the English's biggest allies, whether because it was through gifts, marriage, or simply not being a dick to the natives unlike many among English.

They provide infrastructure, but trade and commerce is still very much dominated by the natives, who may have other opinions on British colonists (generally they were receptive to British traders but skeptical about full-fledged settlements; the same tended to apply to their attitude towards the French as well.
I never said France dominated trade, I said that those forts served as their trading posts with the natives.

More broadly, this expanded set of garrisons is going to be extremely expensive, and the French finances were always worse than the British throughout the period. All to protect land that isn't going to be particular profitable to France anyway.
Really? France was figuring out how much they could actually gain from the Mississippi's watershed shortly before they lost it OTL. Over the 18th century France's population grew from 20 to 30 million, it grew again with 10 million in the 19th century! Owning regions like the Great Plains could've been of major importance to the French. It'd have solved France's food and population problem. Also in the long run conflict with the natives to settle these areas could be largely averted by complete integration of the native and French communities. Until at least the end of the 19th century there were tribes in the former French colonies who were completely Catholic and who primarily spoke French, a century after the French left for the last time. Some tribes have elders to this very day who a monolingual French speakers!
 
Last edited:
It's also worth considering that Mexico invited American settlers into Texas to help deal with the Comanche. Will the French have any incentive to do the same? Probably not, and they'd have the means to kick the American settlers out. I think that the only way the Mississippi basin ends up in the USA is if it's pried off by war (when the French are busy elsewhere and cut off by the British at sea).

With or without a French Revolution, France and Britain are bound to go to war cyclically for next couple successive generations, and North America will always be a battleground. The real question is the relationship of the USA with both powers and if the culture of expansion affects those relationships.
 
The point remains, England didn't dare to face France on its own at any point around the 18th century. England was weaker than France before the industrial revolution in nearly every aspect and would never find an ally willing to fight France after France'd have won the 7YW. Furthermore England didn't once actively seek out a war with France, they got into conflicts because their allies did or because they were on opposing sides whenever something major happened that could define the balance of power in Europe for decades to come. In short, there's no way England would just randomly start an Anglo-French war for something not worth fighting a war over.
I'm sorry, but the bolded is just plain wrong. If France wins the 7YW, that means Austria wins the 7YW, regaining Silesia and reducing or eliminating Prussia as a threat. And then, in another couple of decades, Austria has claims on Bavaria to press..

Most likely scenario here is Britain resumes its old alliance with Austria and you have the perfect opportunity for another war in 20 or so years, assuming the French Revolution is avoided.
 
I'm sorry, but the bolded is just plain wrong. If France wins the 7YW, that means Austria wins the 7YW, regaining Silesia and reducing or eliminating Prussia as a threat. And then, in another couple of decades, Austria has claims on Bavaria to press..

Most likely scenario here is Britain resumes its old alliance with Austria and you have the perfect opportunity for another war in 20 or so years, assuming the French Revolution is avoided.

France winning the 7 years war does not necessarily imply Prussia losing Silesia.

OTL, Prussia lost the 7YW. And Prussia did not keep Silesia because France lost the 7YW but because occurred an event that was called the miracle of the House of Brandenburg : the fact that Elizabeth I of Russia died and that her successor Peter III was so totally prussophile that he decided to save Prussia and guarantee its territorial integrity.

So the same still can happen. But you can have France deprive Prussia of its few possessions around the lower Rhine.
 

Kaze

Banned
Even with a French victory, they might still be a call to pay for the war and its costs. Where in the American Revolution and the French Rev could loom on the deep horizon.
 
Even with a French victory, they might still be a call to pay for the war and its costs. Where in the American Revolution and the French Rev could loom on the deep horizon.

The decisive victory was not victory in North America but victory in India. He who succeeds in establishing a decisive control over India becomes unbankruptable.

Without the indian milkcow, Britain would never have been able to sustain such a war effort for 22 years against revolutionary and Napoleonic France. And it probably would not have avoided a kind of radical revolution.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The decisive victory was not victory in North America but victory in India. He who succeeds in establishing a decisive control over India becomes unbankruptable.

Without the indian milkcow, Britain would never have been able to sustain such a war effort for 22 years against revolutionary and Napoleonic France. And it probably would not have avoided a kind of radical revolution.

Bold assertion, but sure would make an interesting timeline.
 
Top