WI: England won New France and Florida in Queen Anne’s War (War of the Spanish Succession) ?



They did so only after the seven years war with France was underway. If the French are already evicted they do not have a base in close enough proximity to "support or promote" rebellion let alone a "fifth column" The French settlers both in Canada and Acadia are probably left to attend to their farms and small communities the same way they were after 1763 in Canada. They will simply exchange French administrators and merchants for British ones. There will be no "upheaval" in this case. Their communities will grow and spread in this region much as they did in OTL growing to number as many as 80K by mid century, limited to the lower St. Lawrence valley, the Acadia peninsula and the isthmus of Chignecto, probably to the shores of Cape Breton and Ile St. Jean along the shores of the Northumberland strait to at least the Miramichi and perhaps Chaleur bay.

British and New Englanders will settle from Portland to the St. John River. Some may settle on the Acadian peninsula, but without a French presence, there is no reason to found Halifax, since there is no Louisbourg to counter. The French may remain at Plaisance in NFLD but it depends if they have the offshore islands to maintain their presence in the Atlantic fishery.

British settlers in the colonies only number a quarter of million at the turn of the century they still haven't advanced that far inland and have plenty of way to go before even getting to the eastern continental divide. Keeping the peace with natives as these colonies eventually reach that divide will be the biggest problem for the British. There will be no British settlers in the French settled areas, because they're French and Catholic and very traditional, and as said there is still plenty of land adjacent to the colonies already established that lie only within the domain of the Natives. Any Br. settlers will remain largely military garrisons, administrators, merchants and traders, same as post 1763.
 
I mean there will probably be a subsequent war between England and France where removals will happen

Without a French presence on the continent to support rebellion its unlikely they will be seen as so severe a threat. Especially if there are no strategic British military posts that need to be secured beyond the small scale frontier garrisons designed more for keeping the peace than countering an organized and official hostile military presence.
 
Last edited:
Without a French presence on the continent to support rebellion its unlikely they will be seen as so severe a threat. Especially if there are no strategic British military posts that need to be secured beyond the small scale frontier garrisons designed more for keeping the peace than countering an organized and official hostile military presence.

St Domingue is still a good place for the French to launch invasions from though
 
St Domingue is still a good place for the French to launch invasions from though

Really, they only just received it from the Spanish, and its more a threat to the Caribbean than the continent. and its about as far from French settled NA as it can get. They also have plenty of other islands in the Caribbean that they have held far longer. There are plenty of British colonies and ports between them and the Caribbean making such strategic projection beyond the Caribbean basin remote, and frankly ridiculous.
 
Really, they only just received it from the Spanish, and its more a threat to the Caribbean than the continent. and its about as far from French settled NA as it can get. They also have plenty of other islands in the Caribbean that they have held far longer. There are plenty of British colonies and ports between them and the Caribbean making such strategic projection beyond the Caribbean basin remote, and frankly ridiculous.

All that really matters is what the British think.

Alternatively we might just see French Catholics emigrate of their own accord
 
All that really matters is what the British think.

Alternatively we might just see French Catholics emigrate of their own accord


We already know from our own history how the British treated the French colonials and how British settlers reacted in the aftermath of a French retreat from the continent. Having it occur earlier does not really change that fact nor does it change significantly the pace of French demographic growth during this period either except that there are likely to be more of them in the maritimes. Those whose existence was tied more directly to the land are unlikely to go anywhere. They went largely unaffected post 1763 for us. Only those more directly tied to the merchant classes, because of mercantilist policies and the administrative French bureaucracy returned to France. There was no significant Anglo settlement on the land post conquest until after the ARW. The only arrivals were to the primary cities as administrators and merchants driving trade to Britain instead of France. British settlers did not wish to settle among the established French Catholic colonists. They preferred to be near their Anglo co-religionists. It depends who is appointed as governor though.
 
Good points. But again, why the very different outcome in Canada? A quick googling didn't show the vast number of conflicts there that happened here. What was going on there that wasn't here?

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulated the Canadian frontier. That's why there was no equivalent to the Wild West in Canada. In the US, law enforcement was left to local sheriffs, who obviously were usually settlers themselves.
 
We already know from our own history how the British treated the French colonials and how British settlers reacted in the aftermath of a French retreat from the continent. Having it occur earlier does not really change that fact nor does it change significantly the pace of French demographic growth during this period either except that there are likely to be more of them in the maritimes. Those whose existence was tied more directly to the land are unlikely to go anywhere. They went largely unaffected post 1763 for us. Only those more directly tied to the merchant classes, because of mercantilist policies and the administrative French bureaucracy returned to France. There was no significant Anglo settlement on the land post conquest until after the ARW. The only arrivals were to the primary cities as administrators and merchants driving trade to Britain instead of France. British settlers did not wish to settle among the established French Catholic colonists. They preferred to be near their Anglo co-religionists. It depends who is appointed as governor though.

Anti-Catholic feeling is stronger the closer you get to 1688/1715. The threat of Jacobitism didn't truly collapse until 1745.
 
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulated the Canadian frontier. That's why there was no equivalent to the Wild West in Canada. In the US, law enforcement was left to local sheriffs, who obviously were usually settlers themselves.

From what year? A quick (possibly flawed) googling says 1920. That's much later than most indian war, even down here.
 

Is this a credible claim? The Wikipedia article has a « citation needed » tag for that statement. It seems hard to believe. 8% of all adult men (not just young men) would be a WWI level of carnage, which is hard to imagine for that era.
 
Is this a credible claim? The Wikipedia article has a « citation needed » tag for that statement. It seems hard to believe. 8% of all adult men (not just young men) would be a WWI level of carnage, which is hard to imagine for that era.

Every thing I can find just says high rate of losses, with a lot of it due to exposure
 
With Canada, Louisiana and Florida in English hands much earlier, where else would they look at making gains in future wars that pop up?
 

Gian

Banned
This really has the makings of a good TL.

I'm still surprised that no one is taking up the offer, though, because just the demographic changes post-1755 alone (assuming we get to it) would be massive.
 
Top