What if France won colonial wars in North America

[TheForeigner]

[QUOTE=Piotraschke;7417493]Scenario we discussed was French "defensive victory" - they do not conquer British colonies, but keep their own, and make British/American expansion impossible.



QUOTE]

I think it was impossible that Brits or an independent US would just agree to share North America with the French. I think it was all or nothing for them. They didn't just decide to take the French colonies on a whim, but it was a long term colonial project. The British/Anglo-Americans and French would have driven the other side out eventually. With all the wars between the two, it was impossible to imagine a compromise and a division of North America between the two.

[Peterski]

I think it was impossible that Brits or an independent US would just agree to share North America with the French.

Actually France supported Americans in their war of independence against Britain.

So France and independent US were allies. It was only Britain that was hostile.

[TheForeigner]

Actually France supported Americans in their war of independence against Britain.

So France and independent US were allies. It was only Britain that was hostile.

But the US soon started it's expansion in North America. They even wanted Canada. No way the would just coexist with French North America.

[TheForeigner]

Also keep in mind that other than parts of Quebec, southern Louisiana and Acadia, the bulk of French North America had only a very small French population. It's why Napoleon sold the Louisiana colony to the US. French Louisiana was vast and included much of the Southeast and Midwest of the US today. Its white population today comes only extremely little from the French settlers and overwhelmingly from American settlers and European immigrants. I think the French were not investing enough in their North American possessions and were bound to lose them.

[Peterski]

Also keep in mind that other than parts of Quebec, southern Louisiana and Acadia, the bulk of French North America had only a very small French population.

Yes but it had huge Indian populations.

The French would consolidate these Indians under their rule and it would be a significant force, enough to defend against any potential American invasion attempt.

Also of course white French population would increase over time, there would be new immigrants from France, maybe other European immigrants too.

[Creoda]

If my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle.

[TheForeigner]

Yes but it had huge Indian populations.

The French would consolidate these Indians under their rule and it would be a significant force, enough to defend against any potential American invasion attempt.

Also of course white French population would increase over time, there would be new immigrants from France, maybe other European immigrants too.

Huge is an exaggeration to refer to the Amerindian population of Western North America, especially considering how vast the territory is. All of modern day US and Canada never had more than a few millions of Indians and their numbers were depleted primarily by diseases that whites/Europeans had. Most of these tribes were also warrior tribes and hunter-gatherers who could not be brought under European rule and exploited easily. These Indians, even with French help had no chance against the US or British Empire. And why would there be all of a sudden this large migration of French and other Europeans, when the French authorities had previously shown little interest in these colonies?
Basically there was no chance for a French North America to survive.

[Peterski]

Huge is an exaggeration to refer to the Amerindian population of Western North America, especially considering how vast the territory is. All of modern day US and Canada never had more than a few millions of Indians

Not only Western, but also Central and Northern (Canada) North America would be under French rule. And that's a lot.

Rather few (not a few) million in North America. Modern estimates usually say ~4 million (Thornton gives ~7 million).

and their numbers were depleted primarily by diseases that whites/Europeans had.

Smallpox vaccine was invented in 1796. The French would start vaccinating Indians (and whites) in their colonies shortly after that.

While in our (real) timeline, Americans started offering vaccines to some (not to all) Indian tribes only after 1832 - so there were decades of delay compared to whites. Most of White Americans had already been vaccinated for smallpox during the four decades long period of 1796 - 1832:

https://ais.arizona.edu/thesis/polit...ation-act-1832 - The Indian Vaccination Act of 1832

"vaccination protection for smallpox was not offered to Native Americans until 1832, after millions of white peoples throughout the western world had already been vaccinated. This protection was not offered until smallpox threatened federal Indian Removal Programs and as a result, protection on a limited basis was provided to designated tribes, which excluded Mandan Indians, leading to a loss of 90% of their tribe during the smallpox epidemic five years later."

^^^
So it seems that only Eastern tribes who were about to be forcibly removed to Oklahoma and Kansas were vaccinated in the 1830s.

And why would there be all of a sudden this large migration of French and other Europeans, when the French authorities had previously shown little interest in these colonies?
Basically there was no chance for a French North America to survive.

Why? Because French victory in the French and Indian War would encourage immigration from France.

I think there was a chance for French North America to survive.

Most of these tribes were also warrior tribes and hunter-gatherers who could not be brought under European rule and exploited easily.

Fully nomadic tribes lived in western parts of Greater Louisiana, on the Great Plains.

But eastern parts of Greater Louisiana were inhabited by Woodlands farming tribes.

Check these two maps of natural vegetation in the US (woodlands vs. prairie/plains):

https://i.imgur.com/MCANZBR.jpg - this one is a bit better I think

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/ser...las-of-Americ# - also good

[Ranger0075]

Only cucks refer to American Indians as "natives" or as "Native Americans" and to American blacks as "African-Americans" or "Aframs" and lets not forget about non-whites referred to as "people of color".

As far english is a poor language it is way better calling amerindians by natives than indians. In spanish we dont have this problem cause indio=/=indiano

Countries like Canada and US has million of Indian immigrants so it avoids mistakes.

You can understand that as long Roma and Romania are basically paronym words in english

Now words like afram and people of color are obviously mainstream euphemism, nothing to do to avoid mistakes just politically correctness

[Gredos]

Nothing, North America was a vast almost empty land, impossible to defend in the long term. Europeans would have colonized it equally just until the southern edge where there was a massive mestizo and indigenous population, either as the United States, or as another new country.