WI many French people migrated to the American colonies like the English.

What would you need for a large French population to settle in French america like the English did in the 13 colonies, and how would this effect the later war of the late 17th and 18th centuries.

Ps could a baguette wielding USA happen.
 
Last edited:
Get rid of Algeria? A lot of the French went there instead didn't they?

EDIT: Wait, that wasn't until later on, my bad
 
Having the French government promote colonial settlement more would help. IOTL the only time it really did so was from about 1663-1672. Even then it was a halfhearted effort - Colbert, the man responsible for New France recruitment, was concerned about France becoming "depopulated," despite the fact it was Europe's most populous kingdom.
 
Having the French government promote colonial settlement more would help. IOTL the only time it really did so was from about 1663-1672. Even then it was a halfhearted effort - Colbert, the man responsible for New France recruitment, was concerned about France becoming "depopulated," despite the fact it was Europe's most populous kingdom.

It was the most populous yes, also one of the biggest territory wise!

The big difference compared to England is that the English, at least after the Union with Scotland, do not have a home front. They have a sea that protects them and can keep the resident army to a minimum, something France could not afford given its massive borders with everybody, something that will come back until the end of the colonial era with the lasting threat of Prussia.


If I remember correctly, Richelieu banned the Huguenots (Protestants) from going to New France so they went to England/Netherland/Prussia instead. If he gets his mind in order on this one and allows them to emigrate, you might get a good PoD!
 

Driftless

Donor
If I remember correctly, Richelieu banned the Huguenots (Protestants) from going to New France so they went to England/Netherland/Prussia instead. If he gets his mind in order on this one and allows them to emigrate, you might get a good PoD!

You could draw some parallel to the British model, where political/cultural "undesirables" (religious refuges, the poor& criminals) were allowed or forced to emmigrate to the colonies. The poor as indentured servants.

Allow the Hugenots a better protected opportunity than the disasters in Brazil & Florida.
 
The French "Seignour" system in Canada reduced the desire to emigrate as the farmers would not technically own the land, only be in a pseudo-vassel state, albeit with far lower tax rates.

Plus Canada was cold and Louisiana hot. Staying in France was just right.
 
And also France wanted to concentrate more on the fur trade in New France, so didn't want as many colonists. They didn't encourage immigration.
 
A larger Fort Caroline settlement leading to creation of a permanent french Huguenot colony in Florida.
 
Having the French government promote colonial settlement more would help. IOTL the only time it really did so was from about 1663-1672. Even then it was a halfhearted effort - Colbert, the man responsible for New France recruitment, was concerned about France becoming "depopulated," despite the fact it was Europe's most populous kingdom.

EdT has noted that 17th century British leaders had similar concerns, actually.
 
It was the most populous yes, also one of the biggest territory wise!

The big difference compared to England is that the English, at least after the Union with Scotland, do not have a home front. They have a sea that protects them and can keep the resident army to a minimum, something France could not afford given its massive borders with everybody, something that will come back until the end of the colonial era with the lasting threat of Prussia.

True, but I'd argue that after 1714, when Philip V was confirmed as king of Spain, France really didn't face any serious threats on its borders. It had freed itself from Hapsburg encirclement. At that point I think it could have put more effort into overseas settlement than it did.
 
Funnyhat said:
True, but I'd argue that after 1714, when Philip V was confirmed as king of Spain, France really didn't face any serious threats on its borders. It had freed itself from Hapsburg encirclement. At that point I think it could have put more effort into overseas settlement than it did.

Oh I definitely agree. I still weep over the loss of Quebec! The lack of colonists was always the weak point of French colonialists policies, all the way through WWII.

Still, even if there is no danger at the minute, you have two things: a) paranoid governments, burnt by past invasions/tentatives, b) still a risk: you don't want to appear too weak which could excite some interests from foreign powers, the Perfid Albion among others, or risks of secessions or whatnot
 
It was the most populous yes, also one of the biggest territory wise!

The big difference compared to England is that the English, at least after the Union with Scotland, do not have a home front. They have a sea that protects them and can keep the resident army to a minimum, something France could not afford given its massive borders with everybody, something that will come back until the end of the colonial era with the lasting threat of Prussia.


If I remember correctly, Richelieu banned the Huguenots (Protestants) from going to New France so they went to England/Netherland/Prussia instead. If he gets his mind in order on this one and allows them to emigrate, you might get a good PoD!

No, it is Louis XIV, some 50 years later, who forced Huguenots to choose between conversion or exile.

Now, having more french immigration to the Americas would probably have changed nothing to France's manpower in Europe. The décisive factor to population was food production. So population had a natural tendency to grow and fill the gap allowed by food production until demographic growth was blocked by food production.

Immigrating to new lands means finding new food resources and making some food resources available in the land you're leaving.

Besides, you don't even need to have massive immigration each year. You just need to have it start earlier, be continuous, and the mix of continuous immigration with natural growth by birth will change everything.

Remember that the english north american colonies had a population of around 250.000 by 1700 (slaves included).

Have the french colonization start by 1540. Just have 500 settlers going to America each year and it will completely change History. By 1600, you could have already 50.000 to 80.000 people in the french american colonies.

And they will probably no stay limited to the Saint-Laurent and Acadia. They will probably take control of a large part and even maybe most of the east coast before any english settler arrives.
 
Allowing the Huguenot's passage is the most obvious alternate shot in the arm for French colonial America. After revocation of Nantes, hundreds of thousands left France for England, Holland and Germany. Having them go to New France could easily place them at parity with the 13 Colonies.

However, New France was an extremely conservative Catholic society. They would be unhappy about being inundated with thousands of Protestants.
 
Having the French government promote colonial settlement more would help. IOTL the only time it really did so was from about 1663-1672. Even then it was a halfhearted effort - Colbert, the man responsible for New France recruitment, was concerned about France becoming "depopulated," despite the fact it was Europe's most populous kingdom.

You got it right. Colbert got it wrong and they loosed everything. Gerard
 
No, it is Louis XIV, some 50 years later, who forced Huguenots to choose between conversion or exile.

Now, having more french immigration to the Americas would probably have changed nothing to France's manpower in Europe. The décisive factor to population was food production. So population had a natural tendency to grow and fill the gap allowed by food production until demographic growth was blocked by food production.

Immigrating to new lands means finding new food resources and making some food resources available in the land you're leaving.

Besides, you don't even need to have massive immigration each year. You just need to have it start earlier, be continuous, and the mix of continuous immigration with natural growth by birth will change everything.

Remember that the english north american colonies had a population of around 250.000 by 1700 (slaves included).

Have the french colonization start by 1540. Just have 500 settlers going to America each year and it will completely change History. By 1600, you could have already 50.000 to 80.000 people in the french american colonies.

And they will probably no stay limited to the Saint-Laurent and Acadia. They will probably take control of a large part and even maybe most of the east coast before any english settler arrives.

You make plenty of sense Matteo, keep the good work. Just a little detail:
the evaluation of the population may be a little low, at the end of the 16th
century, only around the Great Lakes you've got over 80,000 residents and,
more if you count the seasonnals from everywhere. Gerard
 
Allowing the Huguenot's passage is the most obvious alternate shot in the arm for French colonial America. After revocation of Nantes, hundreds of thousands left France for England, Holland and Germany. Having them go to New France could easily place them at parity with the 13 Colonies.

However, New France was an extremely conservative Catholic society. They would be unhappy about being inundated with thousands of Protestants.

I'm not sure the society was so conservative Catholics, but definitely looks like
from confessionnals point of vue. Those frogs saw the light at some point, even with the anathem of the church (by proxy). So true, that reality take charge at some point. Look by the end of the 19th century, almost half of the
french population moved to northern american protestant society with no hesitation, they are still there ! They are named catholic, more for statistic
purposes than real faithfuls. Gerard
 
Thinking about it more, you could have a POD right at 1700. Have Louis XIV recognize that 1) France could not afford another war and 2) its colonial defenses in North America need to be strengthened. He could avoid war by offering the Austrian Hapsburgs the same deal they ended up getting (Belgium and the Italian territories) or close to it. Maybe Spain could even keep Belgium. France is thus avoided a massive war and its resultant costs.

This would not only save France a ton of money, but also avoid the 14 years of lost time caused by the conflict (as well as the territorial loss of Acadia, Newfoundland and Hudson Bay). IOTL, France began to settle Louisiana in 1699. Two years later, the French and Iroquois finally made peace, which allowed the French to reach the interior of the continent more easily. But the War of the Spanish Succession meant that for over a decade, France did nothing to capitalize on these developments.

In an alternate timeline where a peaceful France launches a serious recruitment drive for colonists during the 1700-15 period, it can gain a much stronger foothold in Louisiana and the Great Lakes region, not to mention boost its population in Canada and Acadia. Now, the population of New France would probably never catch up to that of the British colonies, since they had about 250,000 settlers in 1700 to New France's 15,000. But the population disparity could be significantly less, and New France could able to defend itself more easily during the inevitable wars. If the Seven Years' War still happens, maybe New France has double or triple the population it had IOTL (80,000) and loses only the Ohio Valley.
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
No, it is Louis XIV, some 50 years later, who forced Huguenots to choose between conversion or exile.

Now, having more french immigration to the Americas would probably have changed nothing to France's manpower in Europe. The décisive factor to population was food production. So population had a natural tendency to grow and fill the gap allowed by food production until demographic growth was blocked by food production.

Immigrating to new lands means finding new food resources and making some food resources available in the land you're leaving.

Besides, you don't even need to have massive immigration each year. You just need to have it start earlier, be continuous, and the mix of continuous immigration with natural growth by birth will change everything.

Remember that the english north american colonies had a population of around 250.000 by 1700 (slaves included).

Have the french colonization start by 1540. Just have 500 settlers going to America each year and it will completely change History. By 1600, you could have already 50.000 to 80.000 people in the french american colonies.

And they will probably no stay limited to the Saint-Laurent and Acadia. They will probably take control of a large part and even maybe most of the east coast before any english settler arrives.

You make plenty of sense Matteo, keep the good work. Just a little detail:
the evaluation of the population may be a little low, at the end of the 16th
century, only around the Great Lakes you've got over 80,000 residents and,
more if you count the seasonnals from everywhere. Gerard

The Voyageurs & Courers de Bois got pretty far inland as it was.... There were numerous French trading posts as far west as Lake Superior and the northern Mississippi Valley as late as the early 1800's. Many of the place names On the big lake and along the river in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri still point to their French roots. i.e. Duluth, St Louis, Dubuque, Prairie du Chien, Trempeleau, (Prairie) La Crosse, Cape Girardeau, etc
 
Last edited:

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
No, it is Louis XIV, some 50 years later, who forced Huguenots to choose between conversion or exile.

Now, having more french immigration to the Americas would probably have changed nothing to France's manpower in Europe. The décisive factor to population was food production. So population had a natural tendency to grow and fill the gap allowed by food production until demographic growth was blocked by food production.

Immigrating to new lands means finding new food resources and making some food resources available in the land you're leaving.

Besides, you don't even need to have massive immigration each year. You just need to have it start earlier, be continuous, and the mix of continuous immigration with natural growth by birth will change everything.

Remember that the english north american colonies had a population of around 250.000 by 1700 (slaves included).

Have the french colonization start by 1540. Just have 500 settlers going to America each year and it will completely change History. By 1600, you could have already 50.000 to 80.000 people in the french american colonies.

And they will probably no stay limited to the Saint-Laurent and Acadia. They will probably take control of a large part and even maybe most of the east coast before any english settler arrives.

Likewise, would this also work for the British colonies?

What if the British increased their emigration by a factor of 10, would the same apply in regards to manpower as in France?

regards filer
 
Likewise, would this also work for the British colonies?

What if the British increased their emigration by a factor of 10, would the same apply in regards to manpower as in France?

regards filer

British colonial emigration was very substantial IOTL. On a per-capita basis, only the Portuguese were comparable. I'm not sure how much more room for growth it had (a factor of 10 is not realistic).
 
Top