in the sense that the colonies of British America, the future United States, grew more rapidly in population and sank deeper roots in the soil than did French colonies. However, the French were actually more able explorers; it was French voyagers and trappers who explored much of the Great Lakes region and the Mississippi Basin, an effort preserved by names like Champlain and LaSalle. A profitable trade in pelts was established, and French activities in North America became an integrated part of the overall French colonial program championed by Colbert under Louis XIV.3 By contrast, the British American colonies were ignored and neglected, a haven of riffraff and religious zealots, which operated with virtual autonomy under general British suzerainty.
By the middle of the eighteenth century, Spain was no longer a major European power, and in spite of its vast colonial holdings in the New World, it was no longer an active contender in colonial expansion. At best, Spain could hope only to hold on to what it already held, and that only with difficulty. Russians were penetrating in the far northwest, but Russia could never be an important factor: the Russians had too much yet to digest in Siberia and its Far East Asian territories to expend effort on holdings so remote. The colonial stakes in North America thus ________
3John Keats, Eminent Domain (New York: Charterhouse, 1973), 140ff.
The English colonials were too entrenched and too populous to be uprooted; in that sense, an English "cultural" position was assured. But the English colonies were effective (if very loosely) surrounded on the inland side by French holdings. The French could count on Indian support in defense of their position; the Indians had learned that French traders and missionaries were less to be feared than English settlers. Had the French won their colonial and naval struggles with Britain, it was entirely possible that they would ...