WI France wins the French and Indian War

Keep in mind that the British weren't only fighting the French; there were many Native American tribes fighting on the side of the French (hence the name "French and Indian War".) I don't know a whole lot about the tribes' fighting capabilities, but perhaps they could have staged more coordinated attacks.

Also, the French war aim, as far as I understand, was not to conquer the established British colonies but to preserve what they had and consolidate their holdings in the Ohio Valley. I don't think it's that hard to come up with a scenario in which they achieve this. From 1754-58, they largely had the upper hand. Perhaps if they had convinced Spain to enter the war then, instead of later on, they could have had the kind of naval support they needed to send relief to Louisbourg and/or distract the British elsewhere. And in any event, the British expedition to Québec was a pretty risky endeavor, and could have failed, as earlier attempts did in 1690 and 1711.

An excellent path to victory funnyhat. It would, however, only secure Acadia & the Great Lakes region for the short term (30/40 years perhaps) for the reasons others have stated.
 
The French in America were concerned with protecting what they had, not expanding into English territories...unless it served their purposes.

They were far more integrated with the local populations than the British because that relationship carried less stigma for them

Had the French been more coordinated, less infested by corruption at home, more able to act on their well drawn plans, the outcome may have been different.

For the French to win, they would need to be driven by a belief in the righteousness of their cause in America.

The British had a concept of Divine destiny it seems that the french lacked.

Much to my dismay...My family were among the first settlers of New France. Their Statues are all over Quebec City and Montreal
 
I don't think so, honestly. I know it's a recurring thing in AH concerning French America, but people IMHO over-estimate greatly french protestant numbers and persecutions alike.

As I pointed, going to Americas was a punishment for Protestants, and some abjurated their faith to not go. Granted, it was under severe conditions, but Canada wasn't seen as Thirteen Colonies in matter of religious freedom.

Yeah, it could be argued that the larger problem with New France was its economic system, with its quasi-feudal seigneurial division of land. To a person looking to start a new life overseas, living as a tenant farmer in Canada may not have seemed too desirable.
 
Two things to add.

First, that if Great Britain were trying to sustain the balance of power in the settlement after the Seven Years' War then it did an awful job of it. It grew so incredibly powerful that virtually every other power in Europe formed a coalition against it at the next available opportunity and even its ally, Prussia, which had a strong interest in keeping Great Britain powerful lest the issue of Silesia be resolved in favour of French-aligned Austria, didn't step in on its side. I generally tend to find that people attribute "balance of power" thinking much more strongly to the British than is actually based on the available evidence; I suspect that much of this tendency comes from British concern about the balance of power in the latter half of the 19th century and the pre-WW1 20th century, but there the term was used (at least in Disraeli's famous speech after the Franco-Prussian War) as code for "keep Russia weak because we're rivals with Russia", rather than any genuine concern for stability.

Secondly, though I'm not sure if this is entirely on topic, I've read many times that British America and its English predecessor were far more populous than the French colonies in North America, and though I don't dispute it for a moment I've never read an in-depth and convincing explanation of why that was so. After all, the key elements—dedicated religious elements more radical than the monarch and dissatisfied with religious repression in their homeland (Puritans/Huguenots), a thriving network of trade (including rather more trade with the Native Americans than the British ever had), good ports (though not as many) and vast tracts of land to settle—were there. The main differences I can think of off-hand are the more temperate nature of the lands England and later Great Britain controlled and the more aggressively expansionist English/British policy towards Native Americans, as opposed to French policy, (the seigneurial system's importance is I think much-exaggerated, as most of the French colonies' income and appeal came from those who were not subjected to it) and off-hand those seem fairly reversible with a reasonably early PoD. The point that others have raised here, that the French disadvantage in population was France's main disadvantage against the Anglophones in North America, seems clear to me, so surely, if France is to do well, we need to undo or perhaps even reverse the population imbalance, and for that we must understand why it was as it was IOTL.
 
Top