What if each colony still existed in some form?

[xzmattzx]

There are actually a lot of colonies in North America that we don't really read about any more, or we read about but don't stop to think about them actually existing.

For instance, the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts: we call it the Plymouth Colony because it was its own colony. Most people know that already in a way, but don't really stop to think that Plymouth was separate from Massachusetts (then called Massachusetts Bay Colony) for a time in the 1600s.

So what if all of these colonies that merged or became part of "modern-day" colonies that ended up as states or provinces still existed in some form?

What if the southern part of Massachusetts was its own state, Plymouth?

What if New Haven Colony and Saybrook Colony never became part of the colony of Connecticut? How many people even know New Haven and Saybrook were separate colonies at all, even for a short time?

Could you imagine driving through up to seven states between New York City and Boston? Start in New York, cross into New Haven, then into Saybrook, then into Connecticut, then into Rhode Island, then into Plymouth, before entering Massachusetts?

What if Cape Breton Island remained separate from Nova Scotia?

What if East Jersey and West Jersey remained split and never became New Jersey?

What if national landholdings carried over into colonial borders? What if northern Delaware was separate from southern Delaware (Swedes and Dutch)?

These are just some examples. What would the North American continent look like if it was still so fragmented?

[Centropolis]

new france, babay

[aufbau]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

What if East Jersey and West Jersey remained split and never became New Jersey?

Then there wouldn't be the long-standing argument between the Jerseys whether "Central Jersey" exists. I guess Pork Roll Jersey and Taylor Ham Jersey would be more defined.

[hauntedheadnc]

Meanwhile, the State of Franklin pines whistfully.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Meanwhile, the State of Franklin pines whistfully.

I wonder if Franklin would've been a more southern version of West Virginia, tucked away in the mountains and all. Agriculture surely would not have been a big industry early on, like in West Virginia, so it may have evolved the same way, relying on the timber and coal industries in the late 19th century after little growth beforehand.

[MolsonExport]

[Steely Dan]

^ Did the French just royally screw the pooch in North America, or were the Brits (and their Yankee spawn) simply way fucking better at empire?

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Did the French just royally screw the pooch in North America, or were the Brits (and their Yankee spawn) simply way fucking better at empire?

To be fair, I don't think there were so many French to screw anybody out there. There were explorers and adventurers seeking fun and glory, but whatever reason, not so many people from our country moved over there, while the "New France" territory was huge and full of natural wealth.

The thing is life may have been easier to "peasants", even for the past 4 centuries over here, because our own country is quite fertile. Plus, whenever the people would come short of food, they would riot against the monarchy instead of moving.

That's always what they've done here. They don't move. They behead the establishment instead.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by mousquet

To be fair, I don't think there were so many French to screw anybody out there. There were explorers and adventurers seeking fun and glory, but whatever reason, not so many people from our country moved over there, while the "New France" territory was huge and full of natural wealth.

The thing is life may have been easier to "peasants", even for the past 4 centuries over here, because our own country is quite fertile. Plus, whenever the people would come short of food, they would riot against the monarchy instead of moving.

That's always what they've done here. They don't move. They behead the establishment instead.

Except the Huguenots. Many Americans with French ancestry, their French ancestors were Huguenots.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Except the Huguenots. Many Americans with French ancestry, their French ancestors were Huguenots.

this me

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Except the Huguenots. Many Americans with French ancestry, their French ancestors were Huguenots.

Yes there were Huguenot immigrants that went directly to the U.S. from France, and other groups like Basques who were not your mainline Monsieur Dupont French people either.

But the vast majority of people in the U.S. who are of "French" origin had ancestors who transited via what is today Canada at some point.

They're generally descended from people who migrated from Quebec and Acadia to work in the industries of the NE US in the 1800s and the first half of the 1900s, or from Acadians (ancestors of the Cajuns) who deported by the British during the Grand Dérangement starting in 1755, or from adventurers (coureurs de bois, voyageurs) who were roaming all over the continent starting in the 1600s.

The US Bureau of the Census has both French and French Canadian as ancestry categories. In addition to others like Cajun I am pretty sure. In the case of the first category (French) a lot of those people are of French Canadian too. Many places in the northern half of the NE US have ancestry breakdowns where 8% of the population is "French Canadian" and 9% is "French". But my hunch is that these people all have pretty much the same origins.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Except the Huguenots. Many Americans with French ancestry, their French ancestors were Huguenots.

Right. This was because of the so called wars of religion opposing well established Catholicism to the early Protestant communities in the 16th and 17th centuries.

I think that in fact, it was nothing much related to any Christian spirituality. It was more about the economy as usual. The Huguenots (Protestants from France) were growing more and more influential in business nationwide. That the French Catholic crown didn't like. I may be overly simplifying the whole story, but always heard that that's actually what caused the gruesome civil conflicts and massacres back then. People say it was somewhat horrific.

Then a lot of Huguenots had to move to neighboring countries more Protestant-friendly, like England or the Netherlands. John Calvin himself had to spend much of his lifetime in Switzerland.
Some also crossed the ocean indeed. Hence some towns like New Rochelle, NY that would have been founded by the Huguenots over there.

From my perspective, I would say the country probably lost a lot of interesting people because of those civil wars. That's how France remained mostly Catholic by a very large majority. Otherwise, I guess it would've been more like Germany with a better balance between the Roman and reformed churches.

Whatever, that's just old history, but still can be felt in today's French culture. We don't like the idea of excessive rivalry between religious communities at all in this country.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mousquet

To be fair, I don't think there were so many French to screw anybody out there. There were explorers and adventurers seeking fun and glory, but whatever reason, not so many people from our country moved over there, while the "New France" territory was huge and full of natural wealth.

The thing is life may have been easier to "peasants", even for the past 4 centuries over here, because our own country is quite fertile. Plus, whenever the people would come short of food, they would riot against the monarchy instead of moving.

That's always what they've done here. They don't move. They behead the establishment instead.

England and France had and have very roughly similar populations, but France has a lot more land for those people to move around and, most importantly, to sustain themselves.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

lets back the train up to when louisiana (the BIG louisiana with st. louis and the western midwest) and “the illinois country” sent their children to school in montreal and roll that sucker forward. yeah it was owned by spain for decades but everyone spoke french and even had a battle with the brits from a medieval style stone tower in st. louis.



without st louis, st charles, and the rest of the francophone areas in missouri with the mines, and of course new orleans region the illinois country and the rest of that now american territory was dead in the water.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I'd be fine if in an alternate quantum timeline Chicago/Illinois were part of greater Quebec.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I'd be fine if in an alternate quantum timeline Chicago/Illinois were part of greater Quebec.

chicago would probably be fucked in this timeline, but who knows.

there would still be a city at the southern tip of lake michigan but the inertia of st. louis and new orleans ties to montreal would change the game...or rather it would not have changed.

it was new york finance that power assisted the rise of chicago over the st. louis/new orleans economic regime in the mississippi valley. st. louis was building railroads further west and south of chicago but kept running out of money. the river vs rails theory was sort of a myth.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

chicago would probably be fucked in this timeline, but who knows.

there would still be a city at the southern tip of lake michigan but the inertia of st. louis and new orleans ties to montreal would change the game...or rather it would not have changed.

it was new york finance that power assisted the rise of chicago over the st. louis/new orleans economic regime in the mississippi valley. st. louis was building railroads further west and south of chicago but kept running out of money. the river vs rails theory was sort of a myth.

When are we talking about here? Because Cincinnati was a larger city before St. Louis, and it never had this French connection to Montreal and New Orleans. St. Louis leapfrogged Cincy because it became the new western gateway as the population moved west. They were then eclipsed by Chicago thanks to rail and the NYC financing.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

People usually talk about the 13 colonies but there were clearly more than 13. Some of England's colonies in America remained loyal to the Crown; Nova Scotia for instance. If the Province of Quebec boundaries had remained the same it suggests that Canada's southern boundary to the Pacific might be far further south than it is today. There was always the question of New Spain though.

[Shawn]

xzmattzx, more relevant to where you're from: what if the Swedes had been able to actually keep their Delaware colony?

Or imagine for a second that the Russians never sold Alaska?

Or if Congress hadn't had to deal with balancing the number of Slave vs Free states and Cuba's statehood requests had been granted?

How seriously did Newfoundland consider joining the US after WWII? That whole Economic Union Party and all?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Or if Congress hadn't had to deal with balancing the number of Slave vs Free states and Cuba's statehood requests had been granted?

Cubs as a US state would've been something.

It ain't no little piddly Puerto Rico, it's the 18th largest island on the planet, some 40,000 sq. miles of Caribbean paradise. Roughly the land area of Ohio. And like Ohio, it's home to over 11,000,000 people.

And had it been a US state, it's population today might be double that from frost-belt migrants.