Would the thirteen colonies (future USA) have wanted to emancipate themselves from the UK if France had preserved its territories in North America?

Question

For me, the thirteen colonies simply couldn't have broken free from the British. At the end of the Seven Years' War, the English demanded that France cede its territories in North America, thus eliminating the French threat which allowed the thirteen colonies to no longer be dependent on English protection against France. As long as the French threat was still present, the thirteen colonies absolutely needed British protection.

RavVid · Accepted Answer

George Washington cut his teeth on the French Indian wars. :) An interesting stat I came across recently was the 13 colonies had a population of 2 million and England had a population of 6 million in 1750. (Another 2 mill with Scotland and Wales plus 3 mill Irish). The argument was that England didn't have the population to prosecute a land war with the logistics needed.

France had a population of 25 million in 1750 and a population growth of 20% according to wikipedia - trust as inclined. Technically France could have shipped more people over with it's bigger population and maybe tapped into the German population if inclined but it hadn't

If the Seven Years War had been settled without France handing over it's territories, the French Indian wars would have been part of the peace and hence stopped. Would the 13 colonies have seen the French territories as a threat to be fearful of in the future. New France was vast but poorly populated - 69,000 only in 1754.

I'm inclined to think therefore that France would not have been an inhibitor to the 13 colonies.

The English Revolution was to overturn absolute monarchy because the English were pissed off with it. It was completely overturned in 1688 and parliament became supreme. But Parliament ruled as an absolute monarch in the 13 colonies even though the British monarch was no longer an absolute monarch

The Americans were just as pissed off as the English had been a century earlier so I think they would have still spat the dummy even with New France still being French

Peter_Penetrator · Accepted Answer

For any country to occupy a nation is very, very costly in money and lives. Remember, the logistics that England faced to support our original colonies from thousands of miles across a treacherous ocean journey.

The other issue of occupation is gorilla military tactics from those that choose not to be oppressed by their occupiers. Sound familiar?

This is true anywhere, anytime. Look back to 1982 when Argentina invaded the British territory of the Falkland Islands. That was a costly undertaking for the British to defend.

This is why out of all the military conflicts the US is involved in, we only go as far as creating an ally of that country, then only occupy enough of that country for the purpose of military bases.

For the US to have chosen to colonize Afghanistan or Iraq, the US tax payer would not stand for our tax dollars being tied up in such a venture. Then there is the security involved in keeping US citizens safe. No doubt that with our military capabilities, we could easily attempt occupation. The US could have occupied Japan or France at the end of WWII.

Remember as well, when the Irish or IRA were committing terrorist acts on the British opposing British rule had enough innocent British citizens been murdered by the IRA, Britain's would have demanded Britain pull out of Ireland. Sound familiar?

WindAtMyBack · Answer

Nothing would have changed. At most it might have delayed things. But who knows, it might have sped it up also. Almost every country in the New World gained independence, in whole or part.

The French ceded their territory in modern Canada, but I think they still had territory in N. A. I'm not sure of the timeline, but I think they had what later became the Louisiana Purchase.

Also keep in mind that what is now Canada could have joined the revolution. I think they did consider it, and some people wanted to join. Some of the colonies that did join were very reluctant to do so. So the thirteen colonies that rebelled could have been nine, or fifteen, or whatever. The US and Canada could have been one country, or three countries.

Ultimately many of those French ended up in the US. They still commonly speak French in some parts of the modern US.

KostasKouvalis · Answer

You're talking as if the 13 colonies getting colonized by the French would have been a bad thing. So I think they would have wanted to emancipate themselves even MORE had France still been in the equation. The Americans had good relations with the French and obviously if they'd wanted to remain part of Britain they would have remained part of Britain regardless of whether the French still had their colonies or not. And a war would have broken out anyways, since the British would not want to give up their stronghold against the French. But we all know what happened, so we would have to assume that the Seven Years War would have ended differently for there to be a different outcome. It's not like it matters anyways, because the former French regions are still French in practice.

By the way, what's the reason that St. Pierre and Miquellon were able to remain under French rule?

rigmarole · Answer

Get over yourself. America took on Great Britain which had the strongest Navy in the world at the time. Then in pretty much the same generation took on the Ottoman Empire... A couple generations later we took on Spain. Then a little later America took on Nazi German (Holly Roman Empire). You've been drinking too much wine... America would have beat down France as well if they go in our way.

love_conquers_lust · Answer

No. France had to go first. Once those territories were up for grabs, American colonists were licking their chops. They also no longer needed to pay taxes to fund an army that had no real threat to face. So, they revolted.

I imagine the US would look more like Canada had France maintained presence in an impasse. Had the French overtook the UK, American colonists likely would have revolted against the French in a similar manner.

RyanEC · Answer

I never thought about that but it makes sense.

After France was no longer the enemy we looked at our British masters as the enemy.
If France stayed in North America (other then Louisiana) then we would still see France as the enemy.

Joshydavid25 · Answer

Depends.. Would Great Britain had demanded more payment if they weren't able to get to French to leave? At the end of the day it wouldn't have been a smart move to start a revolution with a threat on your back. So that just shows that the 13 Colonies worked smart and not hard.

Drewtate · Answer

Well some say the American civil war because of the ancestry of those involved on the American side was a refighting of the English civil war.

I would say that if the French had held on to their north American territories they would have lost them anyway. Every European empire lost their territories on the American continent North and south, all except Britain in Canada (if you aren't counting some small islands the French technically have).

slatyb · Answer

Yes, they would have. They were chafing at British rule not long after the Plymouth Bay colony was established. Sarah Vowell covers this in "The Wordy Shipmates".

Rangers · Answer

Of course, Colonials aren't fans of power hungry people pushing them around, French territory had nothing to do with that

OddBeMe · Answer

Possibly, although British troops occupying cities enticed much of the revolutionaries. Which is why history what ifs are difficult.

KrakenAttackin · Answer

An Interesting thesis.

Would the thirteen colonies (future USA) have wanted to emancipate themselves from the UK if France had preserved its territories in North America?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Would the thirteen colonies (future USA) have wanted to emancipate themselves from the UK if France had preserved its territories in North America?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.