And that's TTL Louis XVI, with all the problems (including financial) that went with it.
Indeed, my bad.
But altough this *Louis XVI could be more politically-skilled (would it be only because of a better education and much less neglect), he would have roughly the same absolutist-aristocratic mindset that his father and his brother. One can't go this much against their own social, political and cultural world when they're this high-placed (especially when, already as a child, Bourgogne appeared as a bright but really arrogant person) : the question may be more about how much *Louis XVI would trust the liberal economist of his time (he would, but maybe not as much as his brother?)
gets back Louisiane (or part thereof) from Spain and is undertaking to settle it
That would be a massive financial drain if taken seriously, without real guarantee of success : Louisiana was barely populated (by Europeans, of course), with New-Orleans capping at 3,200 inhabitants including non-whites. With the historical failure of the
Compagnie du Mississipi, *Louis XVI is going to have an hard time interesting investors, settlers or really anyone, meaning any serious policy on Louisiana would ask for the state to send huge funds.
Now Lower Louisiana, economically-wise, was much closer to the French Carribean model, as in heavy servile cash-crops plantation economy (which was put up to eleven with the aftermath of the Seven Years War) rather than the mix between manorial self-sustaining economy and trade opportunism of French Canada.
It's certain that *Louis XVI's Louisiana will be
attempted to turn into a continental Haiti with everything it implies socially and politically : anyone willing to take it would have a field day and the only reason not to do so would be the issues including a mainly black and servile population within their own turf.
Would the finances still be such a big obstacle?
It will : even disregarding the cost of develloping a French Louisiana (for what matter trade, it wouldn't tip the huge French deficit, and would only increase its dependency on sugar and other cash-crops), compensating landowners for the effective loss of their property at the benefit of whoever worked it would be really important, if it would be forced at all. Even the definitely reform-minded revolutionnaries couldn't deal with it that effectively (even by making the compensation of landowners as reduced it could be) before simply deciding to effectively takeover the land without compensation.
but it seems like it would be a better idea (although that could be a refusal to do it).
If you have to wait a king that disregard legal technicalities and reason as a Jacobin at the height of the radical Republic...well, let's say you'd have to wait a long time, IMO.
What other reforms would you suggest that he enacts (note: I'm not asking for wankish ideas, but ones that maybe could've been passed OTL, but the king either lacked the stomach or the strength or the support to push it through)?
- Fiscal reformations and rationalization would be a main and needed change, especially the establishment of a direct tax : reform or replacement of
taille, more fiscal uniformisation (especially for gabelle), etc. It would be as hard to pull than it is necessary, tough.
- Internationally, I'm not sure the absence of a French support in ARW would be sound : IOTL, it did made a lot of sense and really put back France into business (and general modernisation of its army. Sure, it would be a drain, but after all Louis XIV's wars were and the monarchy did survived it. Now, it certainly aggravated the issue, but either the crippling debt alone caused the Revolution and then it's an issue that predates the PoD by far and you'll end up with a great financial-political crisis eventually, either it is managable (if not entierly, far from it) by a sound fiscal and financial policy.
In fact, bigger gains for France and avoiding its fleet to be sunk in 1782 would probably alleviate the issue.
