American Revolution in world where France won the 7 Years' War?

What happens to the American Revolution in a world where France won the 7 Years' War? What changes occur to it?
I think if the taxation without representation issues still exist, the American Revolution would still occur?
 
Ironically, I believe that instead of prohibiting settlement west of the Appalachians, the British would encourage it since they would likely have control of the Ohio River Valley and southward anyway. To balance out the French presence in New France and Louisiana and the taxation issue, London would probably give the colonies their own Parliament.
 
Ironically, I believe that instead of prohibiting settlement west of the Appalachians, the British would encourage it since they would likely have control of the Ohio River Valley and southward anyway. To balance out the French presence in New France and Louisiana and the taxation issue, London would probably give the colonies their own Parliament.
IF France wins the F&IW, the Ohio Valley and everything west of the Appalachians would be French Territory. That region is what the war was fought for, so if France wins, France gets it. They also disagreed over Acadia and northern Maine and northern/western NY. Britain took control of Acadia early in the conflict. Depending on POD/how we get to French Victory (and how total the victory is), Britain may have to give all this to France.

In this ATL, speed of victory will determine if Spain joins the fray. Ferdinand VI remained neutral, and died in 1759. Carlos III was very much anti Britain, but needed a few years to get the country in shape to jump in. If the war plays out with Spain entering the war on the winning side, they get to keep Florida. They may make gains in Georgia. They lose out on Louisiana, unless that was handed over to induce Spain to join (OTL, such an offer was made, but Ferdinand declined).

For a pathway there, let's kill off Pitt and with him the whole change of war prosecution that led to British victory. Add in a dose of French military competency to seal the deal. Or perhaps Ferdinand dies a decade earlier, bringing Carlos to the throne in time to make a difference in the war.



In this ATL, much of the impetus for US independence gets butterflied, but not all of it. Unlike many others, I don't think fear of New France is much of a factor. OTL, British Canada is far more of a threat, and the Patriots still gave independence the thumbs up. Also, OTL, the colonies wanted a free hand in conquering the French, but were ignored/held back by Britain, who went to victory on the backs of non-colonial troops. In this ATL, the colonies are miffed at Britain for bungling the war - a war that the colonials thought could have been won by colonials.

The BIG thing, though, is that neither France or Spain will be all that interested to setting precedence for colonial independence. Having won the prior war, they'll have no burning desire to enter another war just to knock Britain down a peg. Without French and Spanish assistance, the Patriots have to find a different (and much more difficult) path to independence.
 
IF France wins the F&IW, the Ohio Valley and everything west of the Appalachians would be French Territory. That region is what the war was fought for, so if France wins, France gets it. They also disagreed over Acadia and northern Maine and northern/western NY. Britain took control of Acadia early in the conflict. Depending on POD/how we get to French Victory (and how total the victory is), Britain may have to give all this to France.

In this ATL, speed of victory will determine if Spain joins the fray. Ferdinand VI remained neutral, and died in 1759. Carlos III was very much anti Britain, but needed a few years to get the country in shape to jump in. If the war plays out with Spain entering the war on the winning side, they get to keep Florida. They may make gains in Georgia. They lose out on Louisiana, unless that was handed over to induce Spain to join (OTL, such an offer was made, but Ferdinand declined).

For a pathway there, let's kill off Pitt and with him the whole change of war prosecution that led to British victory. Add in a dose of French military competency to seal the deal. Or perhaps Ferdinand dies a decade earlier, bringing Carlos to the throne in time to make a difference in the war.



In this ATL, much of the impetus for US independence gets butterflied, but not all of it. Unlike many others, I don't think fear of New France is much of a factor. OTL, British Canada is far more of a threat, and the Patriots still gave independence the thumbs up. Also, OTL, the colonies wanted a free hand in conquering the French, but were ignored/held back by Britain, who went to victory on the backs of non-colonial troops. In this ATL, the colonies are miffed at Britain for bungling the war - a war that the colonials thought could have been won by colonials.

The BIG thing, though, is that neither France or Spain will be all that interested to setting precedence for colonial independence. Having won the prior war, they'll have no burning desire to enter another war just to knock Britain down a peg. Without French and Spanish assistance, the Patriots have to find a different (and much more difficult) path to independence.
It all depends on the point of divergence. If it’s the Battle of Duquesne, then sure the French would keep the Ohio River Valley and the Old Southwest Territory. With other POD, like Quebec, since Fort Duquesne determined control over the Ohio Valley, the British would be in a better position to take it.
 
One of the major concerns of the American colonists was the presence of new extensive British garrisons throughout the Americas which occurred as part of the reorganisation and re-examination of empire after the end of the Seven Years’ War, which sparked concerns by the American colonists, partially because of the inevitable unrest caused by garrisoned troops in a locale, no matter how loyal troop or town may be to King and Country, but also because it did not escape notice that the British had only carried out this re-organisation when the French had been crushed and there was no plausible foreign threat apart from the natives. In this timeline, I expect that the British Government is probably cash-strapped and may not go for such a thorough system, but the Americans will be clamouring for some kind of measure to help them defend themselves against the French and the British will probably take measures to improve the professionalisation of their armed forces and prepare for the next great global war.. Ironically enough, if the metrople is unable to provide that sort of protection, we may see the sort of devolution of authority to maintain order and defend the Empire that accompanied the collapse of Spanish America .
 
Overall I agree that ittl American independence is either impractical, or it will be delayed by many decades. However, I personally don't agree with the notion that just because France won this war, that they will be able to hold on to their overstretched colonial empire in North America for the rest of history. Britain and France have probably bound for another war in a few decades anyway, it just so happened that the colonists revolting served as the perfect opportunity. Ittl it could be a number of other events, spats over the Falklands and Southern Ocean, the Bavarian war of succession, or the Dutch revolution of the 1780s.

What's more, is that the workings of the French revolution are already in place. While the contribution to the American war was definitely part of it, much of France's debt had been accumulated throughout the century, combine that with enlightenment sentiments, a desire for more representation in governing, and bad harvests are all various pieces that led them to revolution. That said, even if the revolution does come, it certainly won't play out completely like our own, and Napoleon showing up on time is another can of worms.
 
What's more, is that the workings of the French revolution are already in place. While the contribution to the American war was definitely part of it, much of France's debt had been accumulated throughout the century, combine that with enlightenment sentiments, a desire for more representation in governing, and bad harvests are all various pieces that led them to revolution. That said, even if the revolution does come, it certainly won't play out completely like our own, and Napoleon showing up on time is another can of worms.
If Britain manages to win the next colonial war convincingly enough -- which they could very well do; as you say, the French in North America were already overstretched -- the loss of prestige for the French monarchy might be enough to trigger TTL's version of the French Revolution.
 
Overall I agree that ittl American independence is either impractical, or it will be delayed by many decades. However, I personally don't agree with the notion that just because France won this war, that they will be able to hold on to their overstretched colonial empire in North America for the rest of history. Britain and France have probably bound for another war in a few decades anyway, it just so happened that the colonists revolting served as the perfect opportunity. Ittl it could be a number of other events, spats over the Falklands and Southern Ocean, the Bavarian war of succession, or the Dutch revolution of the 1780s.

What's more, is that the workings of the French revolution are already in place. While the contribution to the American war was definitely part of it, much of France's debt had been accumulated throughout the century, combine that with enlightenment sentiments, a desire for more representation in governing, ,, bad harvests are all various pieces that led them to revolution. That said, even if the revolution does come, it certainly won't play out completely like our own, and Napoleon showing up on time is another can of worms.
Dutch Revolution was inspired by the American one so that is unlikely to happen.
 
Overall I agree that ittl American independence is either impractical, or it will be delayed by many decades. However, I personally don't agree with the notion that just because France won this war, that they will be able to hold on to their overstretched colonial empire in North America for the rest of history.
Much depends on French and British colonial policy post 7YW. OTL, with a loss, France tried to populate vulnerable thinly populated Guiana (disastrously, thanks to tropical disease). With a victory, do they realize they need to have a change in policy to encourage migration to New France? If they've taken Ohio, do they populate the region? A successful chain of forts akin to what they tried OTL in western NY/PA will effectively pinch off access from the east. That huge eastern border is largely protected by the Appalachian Mountains. A successful control of the St Lawrence shores up control of Canada. I staunchly stand against the conventional wisdom that the population disparity inevitably spells disaster. The colonial spheres of Canada and (lower) Louisiana, as well as Florida for the Spanish, were picking up steam when the war abruptly ended all that. With success, and a new found sense of purpose/attention, Those regions can grow quickly enough to act as a barrier to encroachment on the vast interior.

On the British side, it was a major change of policy to put so much emphasis on fighting in the colonial sphere. If that policy had not been adopted, or if it had failed, does Britain still make North America a priority? In the end, they wouldn't have lost anything (not realistic for France to take over and British colonies), so war loss merely means status quo with France taking much of the disputed unsettled regions. How do the colonies react? Are they more staunchly British than ever? Or are they still disgruntled? A disgruntled colonial region, even if it doesn't erupt into a full revolution, will mean Britain can't count on a unified/harmonious opposition to France in NA. If the next war is European centered, is NA much of a battleground?
 
One of the major concerns of the American colonists was the presence of new extensive British garrisons throughout the Americas which occurred as part of the reorganisation and re-examination of empire after the end of the Seven Years’ War, which sparked concerns by the American colonists, partially because of the inevitable unrest caused by garrisoned troops in a locale, no matter how loyal troop or town may be to King and Country, but also because it did not escape notice that the British had only carried out this re-organisation when the French had been crushed and there was no plausible foreign threat apart from the natives. In this timeline, I expect that the British Government is probably cash-strapped and may not go for such a thorough system, but the Americans will be clamouring for some kind of measure to help them defend themselves against the French and the British will probably take measures to improve the professionalisation of their armed forces and prepare for the next great global war.. Ironically enough, if the metrople is unable to provide that sort of protection, we may see the sort of devolution of authority to maintain order and defend the Empire that accompanied the collapse of Spanish America .
Britain wasn't actually that cash strapped. It accumulated far far higher debt levels during the Napoleonic War, so it had much higher borrowing capacity. Taxes on the colonists was more a principle thing.
 
Much depends on French and British colonial policy post 7YW. OTL, with a loss, France tried to populate vulnerable thinly populated Guiana (disastrously, thanks to tropical disease). With a victory, do they realize they need to have a change in policy to encourage migration to New France? If they've taken Ohio, do they populate the region? A successful chain of forts akin to what they tried OTL in western NY/PA will effectively pinch off access from the east. That huge eastern border is largely protected by the Appalachian Mountains. A successful control of the St Lawrence shores up control of Canada. I staunchly stand against the conventional wisdom that the population disparity inevitably spells disaster. The colonial spheres of Canada and (lower) Louisiana, as well as Florida for the Spanish, were picking up steam when the war abruptly ended all that. With success, and a new found sense of purpose/attention, Those regions can grow quickly enough to act as a barrier to encroachment on the vast interior.

On the British side, it was a major change of policy to put so much emphasis on fighting in the colonial sphere. If that policy had not been adopted, or if it had failed, does Britain still make North America a priority? In the end, they wouldn't have lost anything (not realistic for France to take over and British colonies), so war loss merely means status quo with France taking much of the disputed unsettled regions. How do the colonies react? Are they more staunchly British than ever? Or are they still disgruntled? A disgruntled colonial region, even if it doesn't erupt into a full revolution, will mean Britain can't count on a unified/harmonious opposition to France in NA. If the next war is European centered, is NA much of a battleground?
Population disparities are pretty important when we're comparing regions with nearly 10 to 1 numbers. France also needs to populate any of these massive regions with enough people in a pretty short amount of time. After all, for most of its history, New France was largely populated by fur trappers, traders, and missionaries. Only in the very recent time right before the 7 years war did more women and families start to settle, and even then that was mostly just in Quebec. Further, I don't understand why France will be able to secure Ohio now, the region was still largely controlled by Amerindians, same goes with upper state New York. The French forts were ultimately just a supplement to the Native nations and armies, settling this reason was not in France's interest. I think saving Louisana is doable, and even Quebec/Canada is possible, but the rest of the colony I find hard to believe.
Well, Britain still has France as their arch enemy and will seek to thwart them at any given chance, in Europe, Australia, the Mediterranean, North America, and in the fields of culture and science. This thread is also only talking about North America when the British could have also lost land in India during the Carnatic wars, or have their holdings in Hanover threatened. Even then damage to prestige and ego can go just as far as an actual territorial loss. Further, the French and Indians still act as Boogeymen for the 13 colonies, so they will undoubtedly grumble about their loss, they will still remain loyal to Britain for trade and defense I don't see why North America would not be a battleground in the next Anglo-French War, even if Britain decides that the colonies are a lost cause, the colonists themselves will still want to expand west, and Britain will surely take note.
 
IF France wins the F&IW, the Ohio Valley and everything west of the Appalachians would be French Territory. That region is what the war was fought for, so if France wins, France gets it. They also disagreed over Acadia and northern Maine and northern/western NY. Britain took control of Acadia early in the conflict. Depending on POD/how we get to French Victory (and how total the victory is), Britain may have to give all this to France.
I could see France winning the war but "losing the peace" as Americans settle across the border anyway. There are not enough French settlers in the area to secure it against that tide.

I think it is very difficult for France to permanently keep the Ohio Valley with a POD after about 1720. The 13 colonies just had too much of a head start. Canada OTOH could remain French.
 
Here is an idea for a scenario to explain the development of the new France
 
In short, there wouldn't be an American Revolution since the colonists will be relying on the Crown for protection from New France.

I agree there wouldn't be a revolution, but I highly disagree with the video. The guy has no idea how badly France finances were tanked by the American Revolution. They were running at a deficit, but unless income is somehow less than OTL, without the ARW, they can kick the can down the road by 3 maybe almost 3.5 decades. Perhaps raising taxes in a year where there isn't a famine might not cause a revolution. Or maybe it does, but Napoleon isn't there, and he's not one of those leaders that can be exchanged with a generic replacement. For example, Fabius of Rome could be replaced by anyone who bothered to do the math.
 
ith a victory, do they realize they need to have a change in policy to encourage migration to New France? If they've taken Ohio, do they populate the region? A successful chain of forts akin to what they tried OTL in western NY/PA will effectively pinch off access from the east.
Choiseul wanted to do this OTL. He tried to get settlers from former Acadie, from Switzerland, Venice, Alsace and Swabia (alongside French) to go to the new world. The disaster of Guiana OTL threw a spanner in the works but here, it might happen differently. Choiseul wanted a tradition of "yeoman farmers" (not unlike the British) rather than a "plantocracy"
 
Top