This seems to me one of the great mysteries of history that the Mississippi Valley never got settled to the extent by the French that the St. Lawrence did given the much better climate of the former.
What's also surprising is that OTL Ontario didn't get much settlement from them either.The lack of tropical
Diseases allowed these northern colonies to have higher grow while at times having lower immigration.
But there were not enough French settlers to do both Quebec and Ontario. In 1760 there were only 60,000 settlers all derived from 5,000 population that existed when France stopped sending settlers.What's also surprising is that OTL Ontario didn't get much settlement from them either.
Louisiania's climate SUCKS (source: grew up in part of what was the Louisiania Purchase, and unfortunately still live here. Its miserable, and that's with air conditioning) . At least a large part of it sucks. Its hot, humid, mosquitoes are everywhere (and those mosquitoes are carrying yellow fever and malaria). Sure there was immigration much later, but if you're going to die of yellow fever as a Frenchman you might as well go to Saint-Domingue where you have a possibility of striking it rich first. But Louisiania just doesn't have that sort of advantage at all.This seems to me one of the great mysteries of history that the Mississippi Valley never got settled to the extent by the French that the St. Lawrence did given the much better climate of the former.
There's been a few threads on this, as you know.But there were not enough French settlers to do both Quebec and Ontario. In 1760 there were only 60,000 settlers all derived from 5,000 population that existed when France stopped sending settlers.
I'd say it would be worse, particularly along the river valleys/"American Bottom" where most settlement would occur due to the fertile soils...From a pre-quinine point of view, the climate of the Mississippi Delta is actually much worse than that of Quebec. Historically, a substantial percentage of European colonists in malarial regions died within a few years of arrival due to mosquito-borne illnesses. For example, around 25 percent of Anglican missionaries to the Carolinas died within five years of arrival, and the death toll for modern Louisiana wouldn't have been much better.
The U.S. didn't have a transcendental rail road till 1869, and held the West Coast with no trouble. True settlers used steam boats, but big wagon trains did it with pure horse power. Tow boats were less efficient but they worked well. Most settlers never thought of succeeding from the Union. The Mormons were looking for a new Zion, but the U.S. Army forced them to stay in the Union without rail roads, or steam boats. The West Coast was taken without rail roads, or steam boats. If the Civil War happened, without steam boats, rail roads, ironclads, or telegraphs the strategy of both sides would be very different.If industrial Revolution and steam engine was delayed 50-100 years be totally different scenario with interior not being settled as it was. Plus differences in speech and culture through the US make it likely to split apart. The US would been hard pressed to hold west coast without railroad if the people there decided to leave the US.
The rest of your post made a lot of sense, but this one is a bit off kilter.They were coming from up river, so they didn't have to fight the current
Your points are well taken. Yes your right, you have to get home overland. but that's just the point. It's very hard to sail up the River, so you have to head north overland. It may be possible to develop a system of tow barges, but that would be very man, and animal power intensive, and until the end of the 18th Century there wasn't that big of a population. The U.S. by the end of the 18th Century had a far greater population, and supply base along the Mississippi then the Spanish had in lower Louisiana.The rest of your post made a lot of sense, but this one is a bit off kilter.
Getting the population to the upper valley is only part of the equation. They also need supplies, and being able to get back home after floating their harvests downstream to market. Prior to steam, that required land travel.
As you pointed out, getting a population across the plains west was feasible. With a bit of infrastructure, the same could hold true for settling from the south. Getting to Pittsburgh from the east coast also required infrastructure (Erie Canal, and roads over the Appalachians).
Any talk of USA is putting the cart before the horse. At the time period in question, the OTL USA midwest was part of New France, and was slowly being occupied/settled by France. Earlier, more extensive settlement of New France may mean the region remains French. From a viewpoint of mid 1600s, nothing is written in stone regarding which country is destined to occupy it a century or two later.
The Mississippi Valley is a lot more than just Louisiana. Missouri for example.Louisiania's climate SUCKS (source: grew up in part of what was the Louisiania Purchase, and unfortunately still live here. Its miserable, and that's with air conditioning) . At least a large part of it sucks. Its hot, humid, mosquitoes are everywhere (and those mosquitoes are carrying yellow fever and malaria). Sure there was immigration much later, but if you're going to die of yellow fever as a Frenchman you might as well go to Saint-Domingue where you have a possibility of striking it rich first. But Louisiania just doesn't have that sort of advantage at all.
That makes sense. The best furs come from northern climates.Belisarius II said:
They were men interested in quick profits in the fur trade, not taking women with them to settle down, and homestead.
Ever been to St Louis in the middle of summer?The Mississippi Valley is a lot more than just Louisiana. Missouri for example.