WI: Sir Walter Raleigh's expedition lands on Manhattan in 1585, success ensues

First time poster - let me know if this has already been covered.

I've always been fascinated by the contingency and path-dependence of how the OTL settlement of North America worked out. In that spirit, I'm considering exploring at ATL based on Raleigh's first expedition landing around Manhattan and successfully founding a colony there starting from 1585. New York and environs were well within the charter granted Raleigh for settlement of the East Coast.

If Raleigh founds a British bridgehead around New York in 1585-87 then more settlers follow prior to 1609 while the 1609-50 wave of Virginia-bound British - ~40,000 in ATL - flow to the salubrious Mid-Atlantic region rather than to the deadly tidewater swamps.

Additionally, a strong ATL Mid-Atlantic in 1630's provides much greater incentives for English Puritans to settle in New England, as the economic engine and transportation links of the western Atlantic are greatly enhanced. Doubling Puritan emigration from ~20,000 is still only a small fraction of English Puritans.

Meanwhile, France either sees a stronger British presence south of Quebec and reinforces its garrisons there - with ensuing Fils du Roi etc. - or else loses Canada to England permanently by ~1650 - something the French probably wouldn't have done as even quadrupling their OTL commitment to North America would have represented a small fraction of state resources. In the context of a thriving commercial eastern seaboard, France's cost/benefit analysis in North America is more favorable to greater strategic investment there than in OTL.

The details of an ATL can vary but at the highest level of analysis I'm envisioning a roughly 50 year demographic headstart for English/French North America versus OTL. This means that British North America's population is on par with France's in 1800 and 2.5x England's.

By 1860 the U.S.A. (or whatever it's called) has 80-90 million people and an economy larger than any two or three powers combined.

Whether it's the USA or still British North America probably depends on whether France still has a hold in North America (i.e. the colonists revolt only after the threat of France/Canada is gone). Alternatively, by the time British North America feels strong enough to defend against France/Canada without British help they simply fall into commonwealth status like Canada did. Or maybe there are several unions of former British colonies in North America (more than 2 seems unlikely though). If a Civil War path (similar to OTL) occurs, then the ATL North's advantage over the South is far greater (ATL demographic distribution is more northern) and it's a much quicker conflict.

By the time of the World Wars or a similar reckoning between the continental powers for dominance, the USA (alone or with UK) is so firmly established as the superpower that it easily dictates the outcome of a continental war (western allies decisively defeat Germany in the first contest and force her to join the liberal democracies instead of an inconclusive war that enables Dolchstosslegende). Alternatively, the UK/USA are sufficiently secure to view German dominance of Europe as insufficient grounds for war, no World Wars ever happen, and no humiliation-crazed Germany births the Nazis.

There are some objections to this scenario as sketched, such as that immigration wouldn't necessarily increase enough to fuel exponential population growth, and/or that population density rise in ATL USA would mean lower rates of growth. But it's just as easy to imagine a plausible ATL where the 1650 population of British North America is even greater than sketched, and so is less dependent on immigration/natural increase to achieve American hegemony by the mid nineteenth century.

Many more interesting scenarios to explore as part of this ATL, such as impacts on other settler colonial movements, on world trade, on non-settler colonial endeavors, on the general level of technology given a significantly larger global GDP...
 
I think it sounds interesting, but parts of the OP sound suspiciously butterfly-averse :p

There’s also the question of how this affects the Natives, of course...
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Might a greater British presence in the Mid-Atlantic and North-East regions mean that the French focus their efforts on what is the Southern USA on OTL? After all, with the british re-directing their effors further North, they may well have less of a foothold in the South. The French never valued Canada in OTL, anyway. But as long as they had Caribbean holdings, they considered their OTL foothold in the South (New Orleans) to have value. They only sold it after Haiti was lost to them.

If the French see Canada as indefensible, and (parts of) the South are up for grabs, then I can see the French aiming to gain effective control to the south of the ATL British colonies. The Province of Carolina (whose land claim covered present-day North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi, and parts of modern Florida and Louisiana) was only put under any sort of charter by England as of 1629. That charter was additionally ruled invalid because it wasn't acted upon. A second charter, which was acter upon, was granted in 1663-- and only then was the name "Carolina" even coined. If the French can get their boots on the ground there before 1629 (and potentially even later, although that will cause more dispute) then I can see them establishing a colony that covers pretty much all of the Deep South. They'd have to give up on Canada, of course, but that would then leave the old North-West for the British to claim and settle, which would further reduce potential British settlement in the South.

I can see a French colony covering all of French Lousiana + everything East of the Mississippi to the South of 36° 35' N (NC's Northern border) and North of Spanish Florida. The Frenxh may even be able to gobble up Florida. Such a colony would be a serious rival to British North America, while still allowing for the premise of the ATL (namely that the British focus is further North). in fact, this idea would further encourage the British to do so.
 
I think it sounds interesting, but parts of the OP sound suspiciously butterfly-averse :p

There’s also the question of how this affects the Natives, of course...

I'm assuming butterfly-averse means I assume too close a resemblance between ATL and OTL downstream of my what if?
Fair but note that I make pains to say, for example, "continental reckoning" instead of WW1+2 specifically.

Let me lay my priors on the table:
Outside of a few truly contingent events like who finds what during the Age of Discovery/Exploration/Settlement, I view history as mostly explained by large structural forces that would tend to subsume butterfly effects except at the margins.
One of those structural forces is European continental rivalry between blocks of royal lineages (e.g. Hapsburg vs. Bourbon) and, later, between rival ethno-states.
On that view, some reckoning is inevitable once the demographic torch passes from the French to Germans at some point between Napoleon and Bismarck.
Europe was always a bloody pit of these rivalries until, basically, non-European external forces turned the continent into a sideshow of greater global power struggles (i.e. the post WW2 Cold War alignment and its successor alignment wherein Europe has heft on the global stage as a unified bloc).

My ATL doesn't fundamentally change that continental dynamic. Rather, it accelerates by ~50 years the point at which Europe becomes a sideshow compared to New World and other powers. We can posit plenty of butterfly-level ramifications of this change, but the basics would be similar: a play by Germany for continental dominance that the hyper-powered US/UK could either nip in the bud or tacitly accept. Either way the psychoses arising from the hellscape of OTL 20th Century Europe don't fully form because Germany either loses so badly on its first play for European dominance that there is no insane second act or else the Kaiser-ish Germany that dominates Europe is a somewhat benevolent force that devolves into something like the OTL EU (which Germany dominates anyway).
 
Might a greater British presence in the Mid-Atlantic and North-East regions mean that the French focus their efforts on what is the Southern USA on OTL? After all, with the british re-directing their effors further North, they may well have less of a foothold in the South. The French never valued Canada in OTL, anyway. But as long as they had Caribbean holdings, they considered their OTL foothold in the South (New Orleans) to have value. They only sold it after Haiti was lost to them.

Interesting thoughts. Let me explain why I don't see this as the plausible outcome, though I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

First, I'm not saying that earlier British settlement of mid-Atlantic means no British settlement further south. Rather, I'd expect the vigorous ATL colonies in the mid-Atlantic to sprout offshoots southward similar to the way that Massachusetts sprouted offshoots around New England (and indeed the Yankees would have settled New York from New England earlier had the Dutch not blocked them - the Crown had to restrain its New World subjects from starting wars in this direction).

Britain sent something on the order of 100,000 settlers to the New World during the 17th century. Most of these died of malaria in the Carribean and Tidewater. Under my ATL diversion of, say, a third of this flow to the salubrious Mid-Atlantic during 1585-1620 (plus additional emigration motivated by opportunities in NY/PA/NJ etc) creates sufficient demographic momentum to easily populate the entire Eastern Seaboard before other powers amass the strategic resources and insight to plant in VA and the Carolinas.

I agree that France placed an appallingly low value on Canada in OTL but it had some value to them. Otherwise Voltaire couldn't have mocked Colbert/Richilieu over spending on "a few acres of snow." Louis XVI's decision to send the Fils du Roi came too late and was too little to avert demographic inferiority but it was at least a realization that Canada's demographics vs. British NA had to addressed. In my ATL, I find it plausible that the French try some (ultimately doomed) demographic catch-up play earlier, given that Britain's New World dominance would have been earlier apparent.

One could argue, in fact, that my ATL means it's the English who discover the upper Great Lakes and Mississippi basin, though I won't make that move yet because the English were too greedy and boring to go exploring the woods when good "empty" farmland remained to settled.

A 50 year acceleration of France's response in North America has interesting potential implications beyond the Appalachians: Are the Illinois and Louisiana territories sufficiently prosperous/populated during the 18th century that France doesn't give them up so easily? Do the French therefore block Manifest Destiny in the west? I doubt it, given that my ATL has a much stronger British society in the East, but that's a possibility too.

My preferred ATL would see the hyper-powered USA/UK swallowing the less-numerous French as in OTL, but I'd also like to include much thicker French settlement in the Mississippi basin with the result being a multicultural USA with real Francophone centers around, say, St. Louis, Chicago, and of course New Orleans.
 
Might a greater British presence in the Mid-Atlantic and North-East regions mean that the French focus their efforts on what is the Southern USA on OTL? After all, with the british re-directing their effors further North, they may well have less of a foothold in the South. The French never valued Canada in OTL, anyway. But as long as they had Caribbean holdings, they considered their OTL foothold in the South (New Orleans) to have value. They only sold it after Haiti was lost to them.

If the French see Canada as indefensible, and (parts of) the South are up for grabs, then I can see the French aiming to gain effective control to the south of the ATL British colonies. The Province of Carolina (whose land claim covered present-day North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi, and parts of modern Florida and Louisiana) was only put under any sort of charter by England as of 1629. That charter was additionally ruled invalid because it wasn't acted upon. A second charter, which was acter upon, was granted in 1663-- and only then was the name "Carolina" even coined. If the French can get their boots on the ground there before 1629 (and potentially even later, although that will cause more dispute) then I can see them establishing a colony that covers pretty much all of the Deep South. They'd have to give up on Canada, of course, but that would then leave the old North-West for the British to claim and settle, which would further reduce potential British settlement in the South.

I can see a French colony covering all of French Lousiana + everything East of the Mississippi to the South of 36° 35' N (NC's Northern border) and North of Spanish Florida. The Frenxh may even be able to gobble up Florida. Such a colony would be a serious rival to British North America, while still allowing for the premise of the ATL (namely that the British focus is further North). in fact, this idea would further encourage the British to do so.
Well, time for some shameless self-promotion.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/english-canada-french-carolina-a-timeline.450899/
 
Top