No Thirteen Colonies: Who colonises the land instead?

It's an interesting subject. The Colonies became what they became for various reasons, including a large dose of benign neglect from England between the era of 1640 to basically 1700. It is probably more accurate to think of the colonization occurring because of the Chartered Companies, rather than a "nation". In that regard you have some notable differences between the Northern, Mid-Atlantic, and Southern colonies.

It is also quite interesting to see the interplay between other nation's colonies and the "13". In many ways, even after the sale/conquering of New Amsterdam, the Dutch continued to be a very important party in the development of the Colonies.

It is also quite hard for me to imagine the Spanish being all that interested in the Northern Coastal regions. They tended to go for the resource intensive areas, which vastly most of the 13 Colonies weren't. The French suffer from several issues; the slightly more powerful forces of colonizing that area were the various Catholic Orders, and the Huguenots who were more interested in trade than was the Crown. Once the Huguenots were disemboweled by the Crown, the settlements in Northern areas declined in number. The Crown was mostly interested in sugar, meaning the Caribbean.

Even early on however, the immigrants tended to be more multi-national in the "13" than many of the other colonies across the Americas; Swedes, Dutch, German, French, Irish, Scots, English Puritans, Huguenots of different nations. This had much to do with individuals searching for opportunities and fresh starts. Which leads one to question what other nation could invoke a situation where these individuals would be willing to immigrate? Probably, in all likelihood not Spain, Russia, or Germans. The next question in that line would be who would have the companies who would support it, and the vast shipping resources to maintain it.

There are many inter-plays here; the French came for the fur, and fishing, the British for those reasons and many more including harbors, rice and tobacco seem to be important, but of the two rice was probably more profitable. That limits the colonization to the South if it isn't Britain. The only other nation-state at that time with similar interests was the Dutch, but there situation in trade is limited by the British, and you can only consider their ability to do so if the British aren't in such hegemonic control.

I searched these two pages for the one key word: "navy". Nobody typed it, it seems.

The English did whatever they chose to do because they - the Royal Navy - controlled the ocean. The French and Spanish had to ally in order to try and challenge that. They fleetingly managed to, on occasion, but generally the Royal Navy ruled the waves.

It's not a matter of population or political will. It's a matter of seaports in the new settlements being the main reason of their existence as well as the chokepoint. If your navy can come and take the port, or raid it if taking it is not possible, or blockade it if it's very well defended on land and with coastal batteries, then you're the one who decides who settles where. And if the Dutch try to hold on to Nieuw Amsterdam, you come and take it when you want and rename it New York.

So, in order to remove the English colonization, you have to downsize significantly the Royal Navy, and the colonies go to the country having the next best navy.

Michele A said:

I searched these two pages for the one key word: "navy". Nobody typed it, it seems.

The English did whatever they chose to do because they - the Royal Navy - controlled the ocean. The French and Spanish had to ally in order to try and challenge that. They fleetingly managed to, on occasion, but generally the Royal Navy ruled the waves.

It's not a matter of population or political will. It's a matter of seaports in the new settlements being the main reason of their existence as well as the chokepoint. If your navy can come and take the port, or raid it if taking it is not possible, or blockade it if it's very well defended on land and with coastal batteries, then you're the one who decides who settles where. And if the Dutch try to hold on to Nieuw Amsterdam, you come and take it when you want and rename it New York.

So, in order to remove the English colonization, you have to downsize significantly the Royal Navy, and the colonies go to the country having the next best navy.

Click to expand...

This is too reductionist and anachronistically backdates English/British naval supremacy.

Periods of English/British naval *advantage* or superiority appeared with some frequency starting from the 1580s, continuing into the 1600s and 1700s, but it was a real competition, with Britain at times losing battles, or wars, and often being unable to dislodge opposing colonial-naval operations. At least one of the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 1600s was called a Dutch victory. Dutch counterattacks worked sometimes. Louis XIV for a stretch had a larger fleet. Invasions of certain French or Spanish colonies frequently failed. Or Britain had continental interests threatened when fighting France it was willing to exchange back colonial gains for. The Bourbon coalition and USA beat Britain at sea most of the time during the American Revolutionary War.

British *supremacy* at sea, the ability to squash competitor fleets like a bug so they could not even start to operate or do anything on the surface without British permission, only comes into effect with the French Revolution, and then really with Aboukir and the Battle of the Nile 1801, and the Battle of Trafalgar 1805, and gets cruelly underlined with Copenhagen.

Your point does usefully warn us all that even an England that does no colonial *founding* in North America in the 1600s, perhaps consuming itself in its civil wars of the day, or other global theaters, or more deeply in Europe, always stands to have the potential to poach colonies started by somebody else, at later points, in the 1700s (like Quebec) or in the 1800 (like South Africa). Britain didn't let the prospect of ruling over a non-British European settler population bother it too much. In Canada, the old settlers remained clear majority and Brits mainly settled around the older French group. In South Africa, the British more closely matched the Dutch Boers in numbers. Something like that might happen in North America.

raharris1973 said:

This is too reductionist and anachronistically backdates English/British naval supremacy.

Click to expand...

Maybe a bit. But...:

raharris1973 said:

Periods of English/British naval *advantage* or superiority appeared with some frequency starting from the 1580s, continuing into the 1600s and 1700s, but it was a real competition, with Britain at times losing battles, or wars, and often being unable to dislodge opposing colonial-naval operations. At least one of the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 1600s was called a Dutch victory. Dutch counterattacks worked sometimes. Louis XIV for a stretch had a larger fleet. Invasions of certain French or Spanish colonies frequently failed. Or Britain had continental interests threatened when fighting France it was willing to exchange back colonial gains for. The Bourbon coalition and USA beat Britain at sea most of the time during the American Revolutionary War.

Click to expand...

...As I mentioned, especially when several powers ganged together, and preferably if England was also committed elsewhere, they could for some time challenge, and occasionally defeat, the Royal Navy.

raharris1973 said:

British *supremacy* at sea, the ability to squash competitor fleets like a bug so they could not even start to operate or do anything on the surface without British permission, only comes into effect with the French Revolution, and then really with Aboukir and the Battle of the Nile 1801, and the Battle of Trafalgar 1805, and gets cruelly underlined with Copenhagen.

Your point does usefully warn us all that even an England that does no colonial *founding* in North America in the 1600s, perhaps consuming itself in its civil wars of the day, or other global theaters, or more deeply in Europe, always stands to have the potential to poach colonies started by somebody else, at later points, in the 1700s (like Quebec) or in the 1800 (like South Africa). Britain didn't let the prospect of ruling over a non-British European settler population bother it too much. In Canada, the old settlers remained clear majority and Brits mainly settled around the older French group. In South Africa, the British more closely matched the Dutch Boers in numbers. Something like that might happen in North America.

Click to expand...

There's that, too. But another corollary might be a more stable agreement/alliance between/among England's enemies. In that case you don't need to downsize the Royal Navy, because the enemy fleets, taken together, may outnumber and defeat it. A Tordesillas-like agreement between Spain and France regarding South and North America, for instance, and a stable Franco-Spanish alliance, might just work.
Naturally, a possible consequence is that the Napoleon-era growth of the Royal Navy gets spurred earlier on exactly because of that kind of competition, and we see a naval race in the 1700s...

When you actually think about colonization in North America, you realize pretty quickly why colonizing there was so difficult, and in reality, dubious for most European nations.

Spain found rather quickly that there was gold in South America, and Central America/Mexico, and great veins of silver in Mexico.

The Portuguese began the idea of raising sugar, which was as good and eventually better than gold in Europe. They did so on the island Sao Vincente, off the settlements of Brazil in 1550. Unlike gold which soon became so plentiful in Spain, that it lost value per ounce (longer story here about how this led to a Spanish economic depression), the consumer demand for sugar was so high that it became by far the most valuable item in colonial development; particularly in the Caribbean. Soil conditions in those islands were perfect for sugar cane.

There was also coffee, indigo and rice on these islands; all solid economic value items.

Most people connect Virginia with the tobacco trade. For the English this was true, however for the Spanish, and thus probably a large portion of Europe, that connection was probably more directed to the same Caribbean Islands described above, plus Central America. Tobacco was already well known in Europe, by the time Jamestown began growing it. The eventual importance that Virginia and Maryland tobacco gained, had more to do with English shipping capacities, than with a higher quality, or greater level of production for tobacco in those two colonies.

Still tobacco had no similar relative value in comparison to sugar, or rice.

Perhaps the most valuable thing of all that the Northern colonies presented, was harbors, in particular those harbors that sheltered the fishing fleets of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. It is thought by many that fishing fleets of England, Iceland, and Norway had fished these waters long before the colonization of North America. After Cabot however it was the French and Portuguese that had predominated the fishing of these waters. The locations of these harbors however made the fishing of these waters more attainable.

The next most valuable item of production in North America was pine tar. This may seem esoteric, but for the wooden ships of this era, pine tar was a valuable item, as were the tall trees suitable for replacing masts.

The point of this post however is that there was very little economic items of importance that would draw nations to colonize the areas of the 13 Colonies. The eventual colonization had little to do with the immediacy of value that drove such colonization as was found in most regions of the Americas as a whole. The eventual colonization had mostly to do with the idea that individuals sought economic opportunity, which in the main meant ownership of land.

U S Grant said:

Still tobacco had no similar relative value in comparison to sugar, or rice.

Perhaps the most valuable thing of all that the Northern colonies presented, was harbors, in particular those harbors that sheltered the fishing fleets of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. It is thought by many that fishing fleets of England, Iceland, and Norway had fished these waters long before the colonization of North America. After Cabot however it was the French and Portuguese that had predominated the fishing of these waters. The locations of these harbors however made the fishing of these waters more attainable.

The next most valuable item of production in North America was pine tar. This may seem esoteric, but for the wooden ships of this era, pine tar was a valuable item, as were the tall trees suitable for replacing masts.

The point of this post however is that there was very little economic items of importance that would draw nations to colonize the areas of the 13 Colonies. The eventual colonization had little to do with the immediacy of value that drove such colonization as was found in most regions of the Americas as a whole. The eventual colonization had mostly to do with the idea that individuals sought economic opportunity, which in the main meant ownership of land.

Click to expand...

Cotton? Furs?

Michele A said:

Cotton? Furs?

Click to expand...

Cotton isn't native here, and did not become an item worth profitably growing until the cotton gin. Most of the areas in the Southern Coast did not have the appropriate soil for growing cotton, those areas where cotton would grow well, were primarily in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Fur was predominately produced in the box of states and provinces around the Lake Superior, Lake Michigan areas or in the provinces of Canada. Eastern Seaboard by comparison was not as profitable. Thus for the most part the French already possessed the best areas in Canada.

Keep this in mind; to the British, and especially the British Crown and government, the 13 Colonies were of no particular economic value. The islands of Bermuda, the Bahamas, and Barbados were of immensely greater economic importance than were the 13 Colonies. Wherein the 13 were of importance was as much MORE for their consumption of finished goods FROM Britain as any goods they produced.

The turning point for the real economic value of what became the United States was at first the settlement of the area of West Georgia/Alabama/Mississippi/Louisiana, and the growth of cotton production. But in reality this was a short term element. The real value came from the production of grain in the Upper Midwest; Ohio/Indiana/Iowa/Illinois/Michigan. This came at a critical juncture for Britain, wherein the industrial revolution had resulted in not enough grain being produced internally to supply a vastly growing population of industrial workers. The United States became the prime producer of those grains and over the period of 1830 to 1900 that grain production expanded at an immense rate.
Mulhall’s simple graphical representation of the world’s agricultural output highlights the dramatic effect that the cultivation of land in the vast acres of the United States and Russia had on grain production in the nineteenth century. Animals raised for meat, however, were still primarily a product of Europe in this time period with the lack of refrigeration no doubt being responsible.

As the population of the United Kingdom rose and improved shipping had made imports of North American grain more feasible between 1830 and 1890, the production of grain within the United Kingdom had dropped dramatically from 17 bushels per inhabitant down to only 8 bushels per inhabitant. During the same time period, the number of people engaged in agriculture also dropped dramatically from 33 percent in 1831 to only 12 percent in 1881 as the population continued the internal migration from rural environs to the industrial cities.

https://www.thesocialhistorian.com/lies-damned-lies-statistics/

From another source:

To give an idea of how important the 13 Colonies were to Britain in regard to English exports in the 18th Century, note the following:
By 1774 these colonies were buying more than 40 percent of all British-made goods, mostly textiles and metal hardware. America bought one-third of all West Indian refined sugar; one-half of all English exports of earthen-ware, ironware, copperware, glassware, and silk, cotton, and linen textiles; and between two-thirds and three-quarters of all British-exported iron nails, beaver hats, cordage, and Spanish woolen goods. American markets kept many Britons employed as farmers, artisans, merchants, sailors, dockworkers, shippers, carters, and warehouse men. The British pumped millions of pounds of capital into the colonies, particularly those south of Pennsylvania. Much of this investment was in the form of credit granted to colonial merchants and planters who bought British goods and sold them to colonial customers.

1754-1783: Business and the Economy: Overview | Encyclopedia.com

1754-1783: Business and the Economy: Overview Mercantilism and Empire. On the eve of the American Revolution, London was the metropolitan center of an empire that included Ireland, India, Ceylon (present-day

www.encyclopedia.com

So why would the British invest so much in the ability of the Colonies to purchase their products? The answer is relatively simple; ships transporting Sugar and other raw goods back to Britain, did not want to sail empty to those ports to pick up the raw goods. This also would have resulted in a negative trade balance. Thus shipping finished goods to the Colonies was a very good process economically.

Michele A said:

Maybe a bit. But...:



...As I mentioned, especially when several powers ganged together, and preferably if England was also committed elsewhere, they could for some time challenge, and occasionally defeat, the Royal Navy.

Click to expand...

During the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars England was not commited anywhere else, did not really face several powers at sea and still lost soundly. During the third they even had the French navy on their side.

Discussed at length here: Unblighted Americas - What if England never colonized the Americas?

I think the land isn't settled as much if it's not colonized by Britain especially early. The larger land powers like France and Spain had less interest in settler colonialism the smaller maritime ones like the Dutch and Swedes had less people to send. The British had the interest and the resources. French would have probably ended up controlling what became the 13 colonies by the time of the American revolution(they almost did this in our timeline despite Anglo resistance) but they would have been far less populated like Canada and Louisiana. Things probably go much better for the Natives or at least specific tribes.

Another thing is to consider France also likely only starts settling the colonies in the early 1700s as this is when they would probably acquire them from the Dutch. Furthermore since the Dutch would have only had the Middle Colonies the French wouldn't neccessarily even settle New England and the South(especially not right away) as they'd only be taking the Dutch territories. In this scenario the 19th century might have started with much of the east coast still under Native control.

I do think Napoleon might have been inclined to use the New World as a refuge if France still had signifigant holdings. Perhaps there would be something similar to what happened in Brazil when the Portuguese fled there.

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 said:

I think the land isn't settled as much if it's not colonized by Britain especially early. The larger land powers like France and Spain had less interest in settler colonialism the smaller maritime ones like the Dutch and Swedes had less people to send. The British had the interest and the resources. French would have probably ended up controlling what became the 13 colonies by the time of the American revolution(they almost did this in our timeline despite Anglo resistance) but they would have been far less populated like Canada and Louisiana. Things probably go much better for the Natives or at least specific tribes.

Click to expand...

I agree with this probability.

Especially if the founding countries remain the main source of migrants for the colonies.

There is a chance for deeper, more thorough colonization, if the relatively open and tolerant Dutch colonial regime leads to to an ever-increasing amount off multi-national European immigration over each decade, with English people, especially English Calvinists/Puritans, probably being the largest single immigrant group to the Dutch colonies. It is a possibility at least. Not guaranteed to happen.

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 said:

Another thing is to consider France also likely only starts settling the colonies in the early 1700s as this is when they would probably acquire them from the Dutch.

Click to expand...

So you consider French takeover of New Netherlands likely. I have mentioned the possibility a few times. So early 1700s would mean a French takeover of the colony during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714). Why do you consider that time most likely?

By the way, for reference, here is the list of Franco-Dutch wars in the 1600s and 1700s:


Franco-Dutch War
(1672–1678)
Nine Years' War
(1688–1697)
War of the Spanish Succession
(1701–1714)
War of the Austrian Succession
(1740–1748)

....then no more until after the French Revolution, which wrecked the French fleet, and the war of the First Coalition in 1792.

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 said:

Furthermore since the Dutch would have only had the Middle Colonies the French wouldn't neccessarily even settle New England and the South(especially not right away) as they'd only be taking the Dutch territories. In this scenario the 19th century might have started with much of the east coast still under Native control.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Quite possibly true, especially for long stretches of the Georgia and Carolina coast, and perhaps Cape Cod - but the longer period New England is English-free, the more chance there is for French to spread down from Acadia/Nova Scotia to the Maine coast and perhaps beyond. And the more chance for the Dutch to advance east through Long Island and Connecticut. And without English in the Chesapeake, the more decades go by, the more chance for Dutch in Delaware to advance to the Chesapeake and Potomac.

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 said:

I do think Napoleon might have been inclined to use the New World as a refuge if France still had signifigant holdings. Perhaps there would be something similar to what happened in Brazil when the Portuguese fled there.

Click to expand...

Expecting to have Napoleon still around to try to conquer and be defeated, which implies there being a French Revolution, seems to be asking for a pretty strong "butterfly net" to keep developments in Europe unchanged, despite the major differences introduced in the world, including the lack of important things like the expensive (for France) American Revolutionary War, and any Anglo-American colonies at all!

TheZevenProvinces said:

During the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars England was not commited anywhere else, did not really face several powers at sea and still lost soundly. During the third they even had the French navy on their side.

Click to expand...

"especially".

raharris1973 said:

I agree with this probability.

Especially if the founding countries remain the main source of migrants for the colonies.

There is a chance for deeper, more thorough colonization, if the relatively open and tolerant Dutch colonial regime leads to to an ever-increasing amount off multi-national European immigration over each decade, with English people, especially English Calvinists/Puritans, probably being the largest single immigrant group to the Dutch colonies. It is a possibility at least. Not guaranteed to happen.



So you consider French takeover of New Netherlands likely. I have mentioned the possibility a few times. So early 1700s would mean a French takeover of the colony during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714). Why do you consider that time most likely?

By the way, for reference, here is the list of Franco-Dutch wars in the 1600s and 1700s:


Franco-Dutch War
(1672–1678)
Nine Years' War
(1688–1697)
War of the Spanish Succession
(1701–1714)
War of the Austrian Succession
(1740–1748)

....then no more until after the French Revolution, which wrecked the French fleet, and the war of the First Coalition in 1792.


Interesting. Quite possibly true, especially for long stretches of the Georgia and Carolina coast, and perhaps Cape Cod - but the longer period New England is English-free, the more chance there is for French to spread down from Acadia/Nova Scotia to the Maine coast and perhaps beyond. And the more chance for the Dutch to advance east through Long Island and Connecticut. And without English in the Chesapeake, the more decades go by, the more chance for Dutch in Delaware to advance to the Chesapeake and Potomac.


Expecting to have Napoleon still around to try to conquer and be defeated, which implies there being a French Revolution, seems to be asking for a pretty strong "butterfly net" to keep developments in Europe unchanged, despite the major differences introduced in the world, including the lack of important things like the expensive (for France) American Revolutionary War, and any Anglo-American colonies at all!

Click to expand...

Well in the late 17th century the French weren't interested in colonies yet and were just starting their naval buildup while the Dutch were at their strongest. The French could take the area sooner than Spanish Succession(the English faced no resistance) but that seems less likely. By the 18th century France would have more forces in the New World and cultivated relationships with the natives. If anything it'd take longer as the French fleet was very banged up from the 9 years war and they were fighting another world war. But if France already has a new world presence that becomes less important.

Perhaps the Dutch could build a little empire in the northeast and hold off the French who don't care very much about the area it's not out of the question. But the French would be the most able to fill the power vaccum left by the lack of the British colonies.

If the eastern coast that became in OTL the 13 English Colonies and the USA ends up French and native by the 1700s [even if some of it went through Dutch and Swedish periods], it will attract much less European immigration than OTL, and start its European-heritage population growth from a much lower than historical base. The main reasons for lower European emigration in this century to North America will be lack of Protestant interest in moving to French ruled lands, and pretty much lack of French encouragement or permission to do so. I think A French conquered New Netherlands, whatever the official policies, would *not* expel the the Dutch and other non-Catholic populations, and would have to have a policy of at least low-key religious tolerance or non-harassment, to keep the peace and avoid revolts. It also probably could not stop small-scale immigration and sneaking in to reunify Dutch families and so on, even if official policy is "only Catholics admitted". But under French rule, the land won't be a popular immigrant destination or draw for Protestants.

However, French North America would be an economically growing land, especially without the drag of life or death wars defending it from Britain or British colonists every dozen years. It will produce furs for the European market, fish for the European market, grain and meat and leather and cloth for the profitable Caribbean island sugar plantations, lumber and tar for ship construction and repair, and depending on investments made further south along the coast in land clearing and (probably slave) labor, tobacco, rice and indigo.

The more northerly colonies should have decent natural population growth that will compound over time, in Canada, former New Netherland, and the alt-New England area. This will be less the case in the more southern areas, but even here, where plantations are set up, slave populations will be more self-sustaining and require fewer imports. Some powerful Amerindian chiefs may set up some slave-worked plantations of their own for export.

However, with all these lands having a lower white European population base in the 1600s and 1700s and consistently attracting far fewer immigrants than OTL, there is more room for even the disease-decimated Algonquin, Iroquois, and Muskogean Amerindian groups to live and keep making a living, and make a population bounceback and enter ever more entwined trade, religious, and marital relationships with French and other Colonists, leaving Amerindian nations, and Franco-Amerindian Metis, a much bigger part of the North American demographic over the medium term and long term.

....As I mentioned before, In a continued New Netherland scenario, without France taking over the coast, we could have it play out a couple different ways. It could similarly leave a larger place for native and mixed people. But New Netherlands may have a greater openness and attractiveness to footloose European Protestants looking to emigrate, leaving the Dutch section of the east coast at least, which could creep large, and later more of the continent, of more white, European heritage. Or, in its most extreme form, the most footloose Europeans of all, people from the British Isles, end up chain-migrating in large # to the New Netherlands colonies, actually overtaking the Dutch numbers, making the white European proportion of the east coast even larger still, starting to approach OTL's Anglo-America, with a real potential to become an independent republic or republic in all but name, that later on might be able to give France a run for its money in the Great Lakes and Ohio Country and Kentucky-Tennessee country.

The Greeks.