AHC: Capital New Orleans

AHC: Make New Orleans (La Nouvelle Orléans) the capital of an independent nation (not a sub division of a nation, Louisiana), with certain criteria.

- the city remains above 50% francophone and the school systems are bilingual.

- the city has a population at around 2 million and a metro size around that of Houston.

- the city is larger than Houston and the largest port on the Gulf of Mexico.

Bonus points for:

1. This country has cities outside of Louisiana/Arkansas/Mississippi.

2. If Spanish speakers remain in Louisiana, so three official languages, French, English and Spanish.

3. Have this country abolish slavery before 1880.

The POD is 1780...

Ready for some answers and discussions.
 
I reiterate the usual points myself and others make regarding French Louisiana becoming its own country--not plausible past 1763. New Orleans also has the issue of not being centrally located in addition to the obvious (being flood-prone, being in a swamp, etc.). Where "centrally located" would be depends on the nation's borders, but it's pretty hard to justify New Orleans being centrally located.

But I suppose it isn't totally undoable. For one scenario, let's have the US's early internal politics get more and more unstable (so probably POD sometime during Articles of Confederation era), and the western settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee (probably neither state is formed) and basically the whole Trans-Appalachian region decide to go join Spanish Louisiana in exchange for some basic privileges and rights. They defeat US attempts to reclaim them, and this fosters a sense of nation building.

Meanwhile, Louisiana (the nowadays state) remains largely French-dominated. Spain still turns the place over to France, but this increases internal tension. French fleeing Saint-Domingue flood to New Orleans, and France also attempts a mild colonisation process in Louisiana (state). British invasion of New Orleans further increases tension, but is defeated in the end. After Napoleon's final defeat, a combination of French and Anglos declare their independence as the Republic of Louisiana to prevent their territory from being used as a bargaining chip.

Louisiana (state)'s development occurs differently from the rest of the country. By far the most Francophone part of the country, Anglo settlers still come to Louisiana, but they never become a large enough minority to truly take control from the French. So Louisiana develops a bit like Quebec--a Francophone state in an Anglo nation. By the 20th century, strong movements of identity emerge in Louisiana, which make the state officially Francophone. However, the Anglo minority is politically strong enough to ensure that places of major Anglo settlement (like New Orleans, the bordering regions between states) retain a degree of bilingualism.

With an earlier shutdown of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and even better enforcement by all parties, the supply of new slaves was constrained early on. This drives the price of slaves up immensely in Louisiana. Following a slave revolt incited by American slaves shipped across the border, Louisiana banned the slave trade between it and the United States. When the profitability of slavery is weakened as well, the practice dies a slow death, and slaves are gradually emancipated--first children born to slaves are freed, then the elderly slaves are freed, then finally in 1879, Louisiana abolishes slavery entirely.

New Orleans remains capital thanks to a gentleman's agreement that "it's the least worst option". Being capital would help it's development, but I'm not entirely sure how to do it. One way might that once slavery is abolished, the inevitable Great Migration to the north is lessened by some civil rights laws--no government-supported segregation, as well as less lynching and less of a climate of violence. In the north Louisiana, there's less of a pull factor going for black labour. During migration to urban areas, New Orleans thus gains much more black migration. Ensuring good race relations would also reduce white flight. Combine that with better economic development of the capital, then you'd get New Orleans a much, much bigger population. Sadly, I don't think a nation founded by Tennesseans and Kentuckians that also includes Mississippi and Alabama is going to ensure good race relations, but I think avoiding a Louisiana Civil War and having the *Louisiana Supreme Court rule against Louisiana's version of Jim Crow might help somehow.

Finding a way to draw off Texas's oil wealth from flowing to the Texas Gulf Coast would help New Orleans out as well, though it could draw it to a different area of the Gulf than Houston (or Galveston, for that matter). Luring the auto industry or others to the New Orleans area (like how the auto industry is all over the South nowadays OTL, but that assumes that Louisiana gets a Rust Belt) would also help, as would keeping oil prices high in ways that don't involve hurricanes striking the New Orleans area.

Spanish language is official in New Mexico, which joined after a revolt against Mexico in the 1850s (Texas and the rest of the Mexican Cession was gained in this time too) and placed themselves under Louisiana's protection to preserve them from both hostile Mexican authorities as well as more importantly, Indian raids. Even more Latino in culture than OTL, New Mexico is officially bilingual. Speaking of language policies, French and English are each official languages in this Louisiana--Canadian bilingualism OTL is similar to what I'd imagine. Spanish is important to learn, thanks to Latin American immigration as well as New Mexico.

The other scenario I had was the classic "Napoleon flees to the New World". From there, he recruits settlers from the US, and a similar scenario above occurs, with the main differences being that the nation is a (constitutional, it would have to be) monarchy under the House of Bonaparte and it lacks the east bank of the Mississippi. Lacking the east bank of the Mississippi will change things bigtime. I think most importantly, the slavery lobby will be a smaller one and it could die an earlier death.

There, I think I met all of your criteria plus some, although I'm still not sure if my idea for New Orleans would get the city to that size (but definitely much bigger than today).
 
I reiterate the usual points myself and others make regarding French Louisiana becoming its own country--not plausible past 1763. New Orleans also has the issue of not being centrally located in addition to the obvious (being flood-prone, being in a swamp, etc.). Where "centrally located" would be depends on the nation's borders, but it's pretty hard to justify New Orleans being centrally located.

But I suppose it isn't totally undoable. For one scenario, let's have the US's early internal politics get more and more unstable (so probably POD sometime during Articles of Confederation era), and the western settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee (probably neither state is formed) and basically the whole Trans-Appalachian region decide to go join Spanish Louisiana in exchange for some basic privileges and rights. They defeat US attempts to reclaim them, and this fosters a sense of nation building.

Meanwhile, Louisiana (the nowadays state) remains largely French-dominated. Spain still turns the place over to France, but this increases internal tension. French fleeing Saint-Domingue flood to New Orleans, and France also attempts a mild colonisation process in Louisiana (state). British invasion of New Orleans further increases tension, but is defeated in the end. After Napoleon's final defeat, a combination of French and Anglos declare their independence as the Republic of Louisiana to prevent their territory from being used as a bargaining chip.

Louisiana (state)'s development occurs differently from the rest of the country. By far the most Francophone part of the country, Anglo settlers still come to Louisiana, but they never become a large enough minority to truly take control from the French. So Louisiana develops a bit like Quebec--a Francophone state in an Anglo nation. By the 20th century, strong movements of identity emerge in Louisiana, which make the state officially Francophone. However, the Anglo minority is politically strong enough to ensure that places of major Anglo settlement (like New Orleans, the bordering regions between states) retain a degree of bilingualism.

With an earlier shutdown of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and even better enforcement by all parties, the supply of new slaves was constrained early on. This drives the price of slaves up immensely in Louisiana. Following a slave revolt incited by American slaves shipped across the border, Louisiana banned the slave trade between it and the United States. When the profitability of slavery is weakened as well, the practice dies a slow death, and slaves are gradually emancipated--first children born to slaves are freed, then the elderly slaves are freed, then finally in 1879, Louisiana abolishes slavery entirely.

New Orleans remains capital thanks to a gentleman's agreement that "it's the least worst option". Being capital would help it's development, but I'm not entirely sure how to do it. One way might that once slavery is abolished, the inevitable Great Migration to the north is lessened by some civil rights laws--no government-supported segregation, as well as less lynching and less of a climate of violence. In the north Louisiana, there's less of a pull factor going for black labour. During migration to urban areas, New Orleans thus gains much more black migration. Ensuring good race relations would also reduce white flight. Combine that with better economic development of the capital, then you'd get New Orleans a much, much bigger population. Sadly, I don't think a nation founded by Tennesseans and Kentuckians that also includes Mississippi and Alabama is going to ensure good race relations, but I think avoiding a Louisiana Civil War and having the *Louisiana Supreme Court rule against Louisiana's version of Jim Crow might help somehow.

Finding a way to draw off Texas's oil wealth from flowing to the Texas Gulf Coast would help New Orleans out as well, though it could draw it to a different area of the Gulf than Houston (or Galveston, for that matter). Luring the auto industry or others to the New Orleans area (like how the auto industry is all over the South nowadays OTL, but that assumes that Louisiana gets a Rust Belt) would also help, as would keeping oil prices high in ways that don't involve hurricanes striking the New Orleans area.

Spanish language is official in New Mexico, which joined after a revolt against Mexico in the 1850s (Texas and the rest of the Mexican Cession was gained in this time too) and placed themselves under Louisiana's protection to preserve them from both hostile Mexican authorities as well as more importantly, Indian raids. Even more Latino in culture than OTL, New Mexico is officially bilingual. Speaking of language policies, French and English are each official languages in this Louisiana--Canadian bilingualism OTL is similar to what I'd imagine. Spanish is important to learn, thanks to Latin American immigration as well as New Mexico.

The other scenario I had was the classic "Napoleon flees to the New World". From there, he recruits settlers from the US, and a similar scenario above occurs, with the main differences being that the nation is a (constitutional, it would have to be) monarchy under the House of Bonaparte and it lacks the east bank of the Mississippi. Lacking the east bank of the Mississippi will change things bigtime. I think most importantly, the slavery lobby will be a smaller one and it could die an earlier death.

There, I think I met all of your criteria plus some, although I'm still not sure if my idea for New Orleans would get the city to that size (but definitely much bigger than today).


What are the options if we make the POD earlier to before the 7 years war?

One option I thought of was somehow diverting populations from Texas and Mexico to New Orleans similar to Houston and Galveston. If done earlier this makes New Orleans approaching NYC size in the late 1800s and remaining the second largest francophone city assuming these pops are assimilated, which they would if the nation in question enforces it.
 
Relavent to this thread since it's been in the news lately, since it might as well be an issue to remind of Louisiana's difficulties as well as the New Orleans metro area's potential--these recent floods in Louisiana.

What are the options if we make the POD earlier to before the 7 years war?

One option I thought of was somehow diverting populations from Texas and Mexico to New Orleans similar to Houston and Galveston. If done earlier this makes New Orleans approaching NYC size in the late 1800s and remaining the second largest francophone city assuming these pops are assimilated, which they would if the nation in question enforces it.

Probably even better. First, we have France winning the Seven Years War in North America. Somehow they wake up to the idea of extensive colonisation along the Mississippi, and send enough people there. I don't know how plausible that is--France itself seems to have barriers against the settler mentality meaning they could never do what Britain did. They could still settle it with British colonists, but that'll be even more difficult without the development of settlement in Kentucky and Tennessee. Trans-Appalachian expansion isn't inevitable, and if France settles it, there will be no British colonists. Otherwise, the British settlers will have to fight the Shawnee and Cherokee natives and others, which France might as well back because for all they know, the colonists want to annex the land to Britain. They'd probably be right, since the colonists (mostly from Virginia and North Carolina) don't really have a reason to be pissed at the British government so much they'd rather join France, and France would rather favour the American Indians over a bunch of British subjects. So that means France will have to colonise it, and you'd have to remove the barriers in France to it. The right people, the right events, etc. Since the Thirteen Colonies absolutely crush New France in general demographically, this might be a wise choice--otherwise, "French and Indian War II" could be an English victory.

Second, France keeping/regaining Louisiana by the American Revolution. Maybe France doesn't transfer Louisiana to Spain. Or maybe diplomatic manuevering can convince Spain to give back Louisiana in 1783, and Britain isn't in any position to protest. I've thought that it might be more palatable for the people of Tennessee, Kentucky, and such to join France than Spain. It's still a long shot unless you have enough turmoil and instability in the United States into the 1790s that the frontiersmen and others would actually take the idea seriously. In which case we go back to my first scenario again.

For New Orleans, Houston and Galveston are the main rivals, as well as possibly Beaumont/Port Arthur since as far as I can tell, those are other good ports passed over for Houston/Galveston. New Orleans has the issue that it's much further from the oil in Texas than these ports. Even if you had a nice string of hurricanes take out the competitor cities and spare New Orleans, you still have the issue that it's far away.

Too vulnerable to invasion from the Mississippian-Alabamian Empire.

Actually it could be to disassociate from the former Confederate government.

I don't know why the capital was moved, aside from Wikipedia's note on it which says the state government of Louisiana thought that New Orleans was basically a hive of sin. To this day it still has somewhat of a reputation for that, even if Las Vegas has eclipsed it in terms of "Sin City".
 
Last edited:
Relavent to this thread since it's been in the news lately, since it might as well be an issue to remind of Louisiana's difficulties as well as the New Orleans metro area's potential--these recent floods in Louisiana.



Probably even better. First, we have France winning the Seven Years War in North America. Somehow they wake up to the idea of extensive colonisation along the Mississippi, and send enough people there. I don't know how plausible that is--France itself seems to have barriers against the settler mentality meaning they could never do what Britain did. They could still settle it with British colonists, but that'll be even more difficult without the development of settlement in Kentucky and Tennessee. Trans-Appalachian expansion isn't inevitable, and if France settles it, there will be no British colonists. Otherwise, the British settlers will have to fight the Shawnee and Cherokee natives and others, which France might as well back because for all they know, the colonists want to annex the land to Britain. They'd probably be right, since the colonists (mostly from Virginia and North Carolina) don't really have a reason to be pissed at the British government so much they'd rather join France, and France would rather favour the American Indians over a bunch of British subjects. So that means France will have to colonise it, and you'd have to remove the barriers in France to it. The right people, the right events, etc. Since the Thirteen Colonies absolutely crush New France in general demographically, this might be a wise choice--otherwise, "French and Indian War II" could be an English victory.

Second, France keeping/regaining Louisiana by the American Revolution. Maybe France doesn't transfer Louisiana to Spain. Or maybe diplomatic manuevering can convince Spain to give back Louisiana in 1783, and Britain isn't in any position to protest. I've thought that it might be more palatable for the people of Tennessee, Kentucky, and such to join France than Spain. It's still a long shot unless you have enough turmoil and instability in the United States into the 1790s that the frontiersmen and others would actually take the idea seriously. In which case we go back to my first scenario again.

For New Orleans, Houston and Galveston are the main rivals, as well as possibly Beaumont/Port Arthur since as far as I can tell, those are other good ports passed over for Houston/Galveston. New Orleans has the issue that it's much further from the oil in Texas than these ports. Even if you had a nice string of hurricanes take out the competitor cities and spare New Orleans, you still have the issue that it's far away.



I don't know why the capital was moved, aside from Wikipedia's note on it which says the state government of Louisiana thought that New Orleans was basically a hive of sin. To this day it still has somewhat of a reputation for that, even if Las Vegas has eclipsed it in terms of "Sin City".


Well one thing that could be the case is that New Orleans retains the vast majority of the population of Louisiana as it did in the 1800s, where it at times had 50% of the state's population within the Orléans parish.

Also one way could be to find a way to make early French settlements like LaBalize last and thrive more so, Metairie, Slidell and Picayune do better. Perhaps butterflying the growths of Ville de Vermillion, Lac Charles and Shreveporte.
 
Top