French California

In 1838 France and Mexico went to war over a number of rather minor issues. Named the Pastry War (after a French baker whose shop had been looted in Mexico City) it was a fairly minor affair that lasted only for about 3 months and resulted in a French victory. France received 600,000 pesos in war damages as well as a Mexican promise for commercial promises in lieu of other instant demands, such as territory or war indemnities. Mexico never followed through and they were a minor issue during the second, and much larger, French war with Mexico in 1861.

Let's say the war goes on a bit longer and France needs something more then a few pesos and promises to back down at the peace table. What if Mexico offered the vast but very poor and backward region of California to France? And what if France accepted? The French colonial empire was still in it's infancy at this stage, having only just begun the conquest of Algeria and not even having attacked Tahiti yet.

What would a French California look like? What might some of the place names be? How would it cope with American settlers and the Gold Rush? Who might be sent to manage such a colony and how might it be run?

Any thoughts?
 
Very much so, I agree. California is about as far from France as you can get in 1838. Still, that doesn't mean it is impossible. Or at least, even if it is, it is still interesting.
Would on Earth would they stop Settler from Mexico or the USA from overwhelming their new colony? Who would want to move how would they defend it? In truth it seems a little ASB
 
Probably you'd get a Louisiana Purchase 2.0 eventually (maybe post Franco-Prussian War?), but France might be more engaged in the Pacific, which could have knock-on consequences for Hawaii, the Philippines, Japan etc.

The other consideration is- given Louis Bonaparte's ambitions- perhaps he gets more involved in the Civil War, which could escalate as Bismarck (and possibly Britain?) pick sides...
 
Probably you'd get a Louisiana Purchase 2.0 eventually (maybe post Franco-Prussian War?), but France might be more engaged in the Pacific, which could have knock-on consequences for Hawaii, the Philippines, Japan etc.

The other consideration is- given Louis Bonaparte's ambitions- perhaps he gets more involved in the Civil War, which could escalate as Bismarck (and possibly Britain?) pick sides...
French Hawaii or something?
 
Would on Earth would they stop Settler from Mexico or the USA from overwhelming their new colony? Who would want to move how would they defend it? In truth it seems a little ASB

Not ASB at all - ABS would be "what if France discovered laser weapons and used them to conquer Mexico." Improbable doesn't equal ASB. Sorry, the overuse of ASB is a pet peeve of mine. I shall stop yelling at clouds, now :D

Anyway, one of the issues you WOULD run into is the Monroe Doctrine, though this could potentially make it a dead letter (it was really being enforced mainly by Birtain at this time, and I doubt Britain would intervene to force France to give the territory back (though they might saber rattle a bit to get some concessions that want elsewhere).

Now, as to what would prevent Mexico or American settlers from overwhelming the territory? Population. If Mexico had the people to heavily populate the region, they would have done so earlier. This is also about eight years prior to the Mexican-American War and shortly after the establishment of the Republic of Texas. That means that much of the surrounding territory was stil controlled by Mexico and unless the hypothetical American settlers are going to come through the Oregon Territory, they'd have to march through Mexican territory to get to California. First, they would probably not be allowed to do so, and second ... why would they want to? The US already has a LOT of land to fill up first where the hypothetical settlers can settle down in, and said land is much easier to reach. Hell, even Oregon at this point was pretty lightly populated at the time.

Things will change, of course, during the Caliornia Gold Rush (assuming that it happens on que, and it may or may not). During this period, you will definitely see American settlers reaching California and setting up shop. But, there's no reason to assume that said settlers would just shrug their shoulders and say "You know what guys? I got me a crazy idea. Let's rebel for no real purpose, and ask to be annexed by the US! Sound like fun, boys? Lets do it!" Especially since, due to this large divergence, there's absolutely no reason to assume that the US has annexed Texas in this timeline or that there was even a Mexican-American war - so the US may not even share a long land border with French California, nor established the precedent of annexing American Republics established on foreign soil.

Finally, there's leaving out the obvious issue that if the US tried this bold move, it would draw it into war with France. And considering the state of the American navy at that time, that's going to be a tough pill to swollow. This wouldn't be warring against the unstable Mexican Republic, or even the aging Spanish Empire. This would be France. And though the US could win that conflict, there's no reason to assume that it would be easy. Especially since, in order to protect its new colony, France is by its nature going to have to extend its influence over neighboring states: likely the French presence in Mexico is going to be greater and it could conceivably pull the Republic of Texas into its sphere. Should Nappy III come to power on schedule, you know he's gonna enjoy playing around in California and with Mexican politics.

I could see a scenerio where the US uses saber rattling in order to negotiate a deal where they purchase San Francisco from France at some point for a decent chunk of change (Webster has long dreamed of gettign San Francisco as a Pacific Port for the US), though.

So, yeah - as even the OP has stated, it's a somewhat unlikely scenerio. But it's hardly impossible, and should France get California there's every reason to believe that they conceivably could keep it for an extended period of time, and no reason to believe it would inevitably fall into American hands. This would be a huge POD and it would muck up the flow of OTL's events in the far west and south west. Honestly, improbable or not (and lord knows, improbable things have happened in OTL and continue to all the time), its a fascinating idea!

On a side note, I wonder if the Icarians would settle in California in this ATL and if they'd be any more successful than their failed Texas and Iowa colonies in OTL.
 
Perhaps France is looking to get into a lucrative fur trade between California and China/Asia? And also use a border colony to threaten Mexico at will. Remember, the primary purpose of the war was commercial gain with Mexico. France now has a club to keep Mexico in line. This war, and French California presence puts Mexico firmly in French orbit.
Realizing that they need to have boots on the ground, France encourages migration. At the end of the war, they also station many of the troops there, encouraging permanent residence with land grants. You now have the beginnings of a proper colony. With discovery of mineral riches, France looks to control and exploit these resources. There are limited overland routes from USA, and France can, if it has the will, control them. IF France is not too onerous a overlord, migrants will be content to settle under a French flag allegiance.


I absolutely despise the notion of USA being able to inevitably take whatever it wants. Yes, they have the easiest path to occupation, but it is not set in stone.

Now, we have to talk geographical area. The territory included all of the modern U.S. states of California, Nevada, and Utah, and parts of Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. Mexico and the Republic of Texas disputed their border. Will Mexico look to keep a small, exposed territory between French California and Texas? Or does France push to take that slice and take on the border dispute? If you really want to push (wank) the envelope, could France insist on the southern region of Texas (which Texas and Mexico claimed, but neither controlled. Now French California has an eastern terminus on the Caribbean.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
That could be the justification to take it, planning to sell it off for cash later.
Or as a bargaining chip for something France wants from somebody else.

"Je suis Louis Bonaparte, I am continuing in the family business of what you Americans call, how you say, 'le house flipping' uh hauh hauh hauh"
 

Chapman

Donor
French California is a very interesting idea, and as far as i'm concerned, a very original one at that. I can't say I've ever seen it suggested before personally. Anyways, I don't have much to add to the topic that's all too helpful. My only thought was; French Californian wine. The wine industry in California has a long history and was pretty well established by the 1800s. I could see some French being very interested in getting in on the business.
 
French California is a very interesting idea, and as far as i'm concerned, a very original one at that. I can't say I've ever seen it suggested before personally. Anyways, I don't have much to add to the topic that's all too helpful. My only thought was; French Californian wine. The wine industry in California has a long history and was pretty well established by the 1800s. I could see some French being very interested in getting in on the business.
Maybe I should write something. Lots of people in this thread have said that. Shame I don't know much about French history.
 

Chapman

Donor
Maybe I should write something. Lots of people in this thread have said that. Shame I don't know much about French history.

If you can take the time to learn some things and write up a story, i'd read it. Heck if you asked I'd even be happy to help with research. It's good idea and I think lots of people would enjoy it.
 
I used to think that the sort of France we know, at least with a post-1789 POD, was bound not to be a major source of emigrants on account of its slow population growth. That was before I realized, particularly because of post-2004 migration from a post-Communist Europe largely experiencing population decline, that the demographic dynamics of a population only limit the potential numbers of migrants. I also later learned of the large emigration from France to the Southern Cone in the early 19th century particularly; there many now be comparably many Argentines of at least some French ancestry as there are Canadians of French ancestry. 19th century France saw little emigration because it was a relatively wealthy country with few incentives for emigration; that Francophone/Occitanophone France, unlike Alsace with its German connections or the Pyrenean regions with their Spanish connections, did not have close connections with an attractive destination was also a factor.

I see no reason not to think that France and the French will be able to settle a very attractive California. Keeping it from the US may be a problem, but it need not be an insoluble one. You may easily get lots of immigrants flocking to California under the French flag, and I see no reason to think French rule likely to be fragile.
 
In 1838 there was no stopping the manifest destiny train. I think French would be sent a letter by Goliath asking how much they want to sell it for. And to weight the cost of refusal against the cost of war.
 
Top