alternatehistory.com

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...
Top