WI demographic balance of New France and the 13 Colonies flipped

[SealTheRealDeal]

Somewhat inspired by this thread.

What if the French adopted the policy of sending over everyone who willing and/or could be a nuisance, resulting in there being about 1.5 million French people in the massive territory of New France by the mid-1700s. And at the same time the British adopt a policy of "conserving demographic strength at home" by discouraging settlement of the New World, resulting in a mere 75,000 British subjects peopling the Eastern Seaboard of North America.

What would the settlment patterns look like? The St. Lawrence Valley contained nearly all of New France's settler population iOTL, but 1.5 million seems a little much for the area's pre-industrial carrying capacity (especially as it's still the little ice age). Likewise, unless it's the 13 Trade Posts, it seems unlikely that British America's population would be as evenly spread as OTL.

How would the colonies be organized? Would a presumably more populous Louisiana still be subordinate to the governor in Quebec? Would the smaller 13 Colonies still be able to resist imposed reorganizations like the Dominion of New England?

How would the homelands fare? Would France's fortunes on the Continent suffer with so fewer people? Would the UK be able to handle the social strain of having more paupers and non-mainstream sects?

Would France be likely to conquer British America? The frontier between the two being what it is it still seems unlikely that an overland campaign could be decisive. Historically New France fell because the British had naval superiority and were eventually able to just sail right to Quebec, with the UK presumably still the #1 navy it seems unlikely that France would be able to pull a similar move on say Boston or Baltimore.

 

[Gabingston]

If this were the case then I'd imagine that the French would've taken New England at the very least, if not more. As you said, there's no way you're getting 1.5 million Frenchies into little ice age Quebec. I could see everything north of Maryland being French and everything south of North Carolina being Spanish, with the British concentrated around the Chesapeake.

 

[TheKutKu]

France’s native alliances in the st Lawrence just wouldn’t work with such a large settler population figure, so there’s definitely room for the british to try to get the Abenaki and others on their side to defend New England.

that or the New French administration take the seigneuries system seriously to try to control the popualtion settlement and keep alliances with native (which would fail anyway due to the increased illness) , but then that just means hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen will just leave and live neutrally like many acadians


Effect on the continent is very small, already moving the settlement date to Cartier’s first trips in 1530-40s already add more than two doubling times to Quebec’s population by 1750, You need another two doubling, considering all quebeckers come from 10,000 settlers (of whom only 2,000 were women), whatever additional dozen thousands settlers would be negligible compared to France’s 20 millions (or 80 millions who lived in that period)

honestly big Quebec is One thing, and it’s probably not going to be wealthier than the equivalent handful of IRL British colonies , but a Louisiana with almost a million settlers, and probably correspondingly the same number of slaves and freedman, is a giant, New Orleans (or its equivalent since it’s have to be founded earlier) isn’t just the largest city of the IRL-USA, It’the Center of the entire Western Hemisphere and France’s second city. Louis XVI going to New Orleans goes from an entertaining fantasy to something he’d probably seriously consider even in peace time

 

[Gabingston]

France’s native alliances in the st Lawrence just wouldn’t work with such a large settler population figure, so there’s definitely room for the british to try to get the Abenaki and others on their side to defend New England.

that or the New French administration take the seigneuries system seriously to try to control the popualtion settlement and keep alliances with native (which would fail anyway due to the increased illness) , but then that just means hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen will just leave and live neutrally like many acadians


Effect on the continent is very small, already moving the settlement date to Cartier’s first trips in 1530-40s already add more than two doubling times to Quebec’s population by 1750, You need another two doubling, considering all quebeckers come from 10,000 settlers (of whine only 2,000 were women), whatever additional dozen thousands settlers would be negligible compared to France’s 20 millions (or 80 millions who lived in that period)

How about the French make New France a penal colony? I'm sure there were enough debtors, petty thieves, prostitutes and the like to get a good number of settlers to New France. You could add in some orphans for good measure (which they did do IOTL with the filles du roi.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

How about the French make New France a penal colony? I'm sure there were enough debtors, petty thieves, prostitutes and the like to get a good number of settlers to New France. You could add in some orphans for good measure (which they did do IOTL with the filles du roi.

iirc the French prefference at the time was to keep prisoners on penal hulks rather than prisons on land, now we just need for those ships to sail across the ocean...

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

I'd send them to New Orleans and up the Mississippi instead of to Canada honestly. More room for settlement without destroying the important Great Lakes/Ohio River Valley Native American alliance system they got going on.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I'd send them to New Orleans and up the Mississippi instead of to Canada honestly. More room for settlement without destroying the important Great Lakes/Ohio River Valley Native American alliance system they got going on.

Depends on if the Huron still collapse. The Algonquian peoples that functionally replaced the Huron Confederacy in the French alliance system did not completely fill the void geographically or demographically. Kingston, Detroit, and the other forts that acted as trading posts/checks on Iroquois expansion would likely become the nucleus of agricultural settlements.

 

[riggerrob]

Even if the Saint Lawrence river lowlands could support 1.5 million habitants, there is still plenty more farm land in (what is now) Ontario, the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins. Remember that only a 30 mile portage south of Chicago separates the Saint Lawrence and Mississippi River drainages.

 

[funnyhat]

If this were the case then I'd imagine that the French would've taken New England at the very least, if not more. As you said, there's no way you're getting 1.5 million Frenchies into little ice age Quebec. I could see everything north of Maryland being French and everything south of North Carolina being Spanish, with the British concentrated around the Chesapeake.

The borders could be similar to OTL. There is a lot of land between the St Lawrence and the Gulf of Mexico. New England is not even necessarily the best land to settle - there are more fertile lands further inland.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The borders could be similar to OTL. There is a lot of land between the St Lawrence and the Gulf of Mexico. New England is not even necessarily the best land to settle - there are more fertile lands further inland.

TBH the bigger challenge would probably be getting the British colonies to reach their OTL borders -- only 75,000 people spread across thirteen colonies means an average of less than 6,000 per colony, which is barely enough for a small town plus hinterland. I suspect that either British settlement will end up being concentrated in just one part of the Atlantic seaboard, or else you'll essentially have a series of coastal trading posts with the hinterland being occupied by native tribes whose allegiance to the British Crown is largely nominal. If we don't count slaves towards the 75,000 total, that would provide some way to bulk up the population in the southern colonies at least.

 

[unprincipled peter]

I'd send them to New Orleans and up the Mississippi instead of to Canada honestly. More room for settlement without destroying the important Great Lakes/Ohio River Valley Native American alliance system they got going on.

Prior to the age of steam, navigation up the Mississippi is limited due to the strong current. Would require roads for northward travel.

You can make it to the southern end of the Natchez Trace (Natchez MS) by sail, and use/expand the trace to travel to Tennessee and Kentucky. Agriculture products can then be floated downstream to New Orleans. This was a route for USA from Kentucky/Ohio settlements. The French would have to subdue the Chickasaw natives (something they couldn't do, OTL), or ally with them.

I would suspect in WI scenario would see a large middle heartland. The access points, Acadia/Quebec and New Orleans, aren't all that great for large populations, so the migration would be faster up the St Lawrence valley, and down the Mississippi.

France would have to approach the Beaver Wars differently. Once France has a large presence, the Iroquois can be countered. Early Iroquois success may actually be beneficial to France. Iroquois defeat and drive out natives from Ohio/Indiana/Kentucky, then the French drive out Iroquois. The Iroquois are going to be the main native military force for the English. Defeat them, and the northern British are contained.

The Great Lakes region can't be left too native dominant. It's the route from Canadian New France to Louisiana New France. They don't necessary need to be displaced, but they would need to adapt to white encroachment.

 

[unprincipled peter]

It will be hard to do a 100% flip of situations. with a flip will come a change in borders. France will take Acadia and Maine, and likely encroach greatly on New England.

I suspect New England will be the 'Quebec/Montreal' hub of British North America. As such, it'll be the hardest to conquer. But it can be nibbled at. Vermont will be contested, as will northern/central New York. Depending on circumstances, NY may be entirely taken. But, with a French population bursting out of the St Lawrence Valley, northern New England/NY will be taken. As the Iroquois are contained, western NY and western Pennsylvania will fall as well. Ditto West Virginia.

In the south, France will push the boundaries of Louisiana. Kentucky and central/western Tennessee, along with Mississippi will be French. They'll push west against Texas and Colorado. If a War of Quadruple Alliance still happens, and France already has a good foothold in New Orleans, look for France to do much better there (they did ok with very limited troops, but gave it back at the peace treaty). OTL, France claimed much, if not all, of Texas and Colorado.

If France is making an effort in North America, they are likely going to contest Rupert's Land.

With an effort in NA, there'll be more naval effort. I don't think we can simply assume the same British/French naval disparity. If nothing else, New France won't be bottlenecked by the mouth of the St Lawrence.

What will save British North America is that France has a lot of area to nibble at, and 1.5 million inhabitants will be spread out over a far greater area than the 1.5 english were. The Appalachian Mountains are a barrier for French invasion from the west. New York is very vulnerable. The Iroquois are the main barrier. But, with such a low population, the English are not a threat to New France. England/Britain would have to send a lot of manpower to contest the borders, and if English policy is not interested in populating North America, there's no reason for them to do so. Once Acadia falls firmly French, North America is likely limited to a few skirmishes during European wars.