Jamestown fails and the English/British give up on the idea of colonizing North America

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#1
What would have happened had Jamestown failed (similar to how Roanoke previously failed) and the English/British subsequently gave up on the idea of colonizing continental North America?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#4
Losing Jamestown might have slowed British settlement, but it wouldn't stop it. Even if the Crown lost interest in North America, private colonies would have continued.
How much less severe would English settlement on the North American eastern seaboard have been in this scenario by the late 1700s?
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,657
#8
Jamestown wasn't that big of a deal- plenty of colonies failed- any singular failure wouldn't stop Europeans with large population surpluses from trying. Britain in that scenario still has the best chance of colonizing the Eastern seaboard with perhaps Germany and Italy coming next but neither of those two nations were sea powers so while France was a sea power and might have been able to retain colonies with majority non-French immigration- the antagonism against Spain would likely prevent it from colonizing the eastern seaboard even if England, France, and Low Countries did not.

If Britain simply stops trying for some reason (more than the failure of Jamestown) I could see Spain expanding in the south up the coasts from Florida while New Amsterdam draws German and a few British colonists and with France retaining the Mississippi valley and Quebec with English only interested in Labrador and the NW territories and some of the Carribean islands for resource extraction and more English colonists go to S Africa, Australia, and India.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#9
Jamestown wasn't that big of a deal- plenty of colonies failed- any singular failure wouldn't stop Europeans with large population surpluses from trying. Britain in that scenario still has the best chance of colonizing the Eastern seaboard with perhaps Germany and Italy coming next but neither of those two nations were sea powers so while France was a sea power and might have been able to retain colonies with majority non-French immigration- the antagonism against Spain would likely prevent it from colonizing the eastern seaboard even if England, France, and Low Countries did not.

If Britain simply stops trying for some reason (more than the failure of Jamestown) I could see Spain expanding in the south up the coasts from Florida while New Amsterdam draws German and a few British colonists and with France retaining the Mississippi valley and Quebec with English only interested in Labrador and the NW territories and some of the Carribean islands for resource extraction and more English colonists go to S Africa, Australia, and India.
Why didn't a lot of Italians settle in the New World in colonial times in real life?
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,657
#10
Why didn't a lot of Italians settle in the New World in colonial times in real life?
16th and 17th century Italy was not united so saying 'Italians' then barely makes sense while the people who could afford to immigrate in this era had not the desire and the poor had not the organization as they were far more valuable as taxpayers and workers than colonists whereas England did not have a huge surplus population it did have some and the extra motivation of many people of means felt oppressed by their state and at the same time the state was perfectly happy to see some of the religious discontents depart for distant shores.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions