Vahaduo calcs vol.2

[Peterski]

New Brunswick is in Canada, not Australia, hence the French shift, but I don't think it's very representative tbh, it's a relatively low sample size (20) and must be less French than that.

New Brunswick was originally a French colony (it was part of Acadia).

It can be representative, and I observed the same in 2020 with 19 samples:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...match-averages



Actually I would also expect a French shift in Maine, but I did not find it:

[Peterski]

And considering what at all once was Lousiana!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

Actually, even east of the Mississippi River there was before 1763 "Greater Louisiana".

After 1763 France gave areas east of the river to England, and hence that later shape.

But most of that huge land area was uninhabited, except Indians of course.

There were very few white French there, except for southern coasts near New Orleans and forts along the Mississippi river.

[Peterski]

And considering what at all once was Lousiana!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

Check this (but as one guy in the comments wrote, it should be called "claimed territories" not "controlled", most of this land was never touched by a French foot) and e.g. a typical French fort such as the ones from this map, usually had no more than 50 white people living inside:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/com...ne_time_under/

[Peterski]

The difference is that the French Canadians are not just from Quebec, and theoretically people from Quebec can be ethnically non-French.

So why didn't you just include French Canadians from outside of Quebec into their respective regional averages?

Quebec is about 75% French Canadian and 25% others (including Non-Europeans).

But other provinces of Canada also have French Canadians, they are in fact >10% of population in every region:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French...and_Canada.svg

Except British Columbia where it is less than 10% but above 7%.

[Roy]

BTW. is there any administrative division in South Canada close the border that has a significant % of Native Americans?

[rothaer]

(...)

Yeah, but accepted by other Europeans, French would have become the administrational language with all mental consequences for the political orientation of the people. Also, the English would have been blocked off from Western Amerika, which ultimately likely would have become Spanish, French and Russian.

[rothaer]

...

[Peterski]

Yeah, but accepted by other Europeans, French would have become the administrational language with all mental consequences for the political orientation of the people. Also, the English would have been blocked off from Western Amerika, which ultimately likely would have become Spanish, French and Russian.

If the French won the war of 1754-1763 and then permanently blocked off the English, they would create a society more similar to Latin America than to English America, but instead of Mestizos there would be two main co-existing groups of pure Natives & whites (with a 3rd smaller mixed group).

The French just didn't have demographic potential for a massive white settlement of that huge territory like what the British/Americans did.

But the French also didn't really mix with the Natives on a large scale. They just co-existed in friendly relations with the Natives.

"White America" similar to 1900-1965 USA would never exist in such case, except for the east coast which would still be English.

Edit:

I'm assuming a scenario in which France wins & blocks English expansion, but English colonies do not become absorbed by French.

I doubt France would even want to absorb English colonies on the east coast, because it would mean becoming a small minority in their own country (because there were about 9 or 10 English settlers for every 1 white French settler in North America in the 1750s and 1760s).

[rothaer]

(...)

What about all that non-English immigration to the USA, couln't that have gone to "Chicago" (figuratively) nevertheless and then been French assimilated instead of English assimilated? Also some Englishmen?

[Peterski]

What about all that non-English immigration to the USA, couln't that have gone to "Chicago" (figuratively) nevertheless and then been French assimilated instead of English assimilated? Also some Englishmen?

Hard to predict what would be the scale of European immigration to such alternate history French America.

And how many would go to "Chicago", while how many would still go to New York (as most did in reality).

But when it comes to real history, the role of immigration in USA population increase is overrated actually.

About as important as immigration was the high fertility rate of existing population.

The data on Rate of Natural Increase (RNI) since 1790 census can be found here:

https://www.nber.org/papers/h0056

https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...0056/h0056.pdf

I estimated based on that, that even if there was 0 immigration from 1790 to 1980, there would still be almost 79 million white Americans in 1980. And in reality there were 180 million non-hispanic whites in 1980. So immigration only contributed slightly more than half.

I used this calculator:

https://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.html

The result of the simulation was:

1790 - 3,172,444 (white population in 1790 census)
1800 - 4,120,417
1810 - 5,370,457
1820 - 6,854,544
1830 - 8,941,018
1840 - 11,297,613
1850 - 14,165,554
1860 - 17,327,074
1870 - 20,637,967
1880 - 24,547,716
1890 - 28,682,886
1900 - 32,566,719
1910 - 36,994,705
1920 - 41,455,652
1930 - 46,855,645
1940 - 50,345,679
1950 - 56,774,529
1960 - 66,110,204
1970 - 73,541,777
1980 - 78,456,469