Buffer state in North America

Which would be the present situation of Louisiana?

  • US State

    Votes: 19 43.2%
  • Independent triligual republic (as Belgium)

    Votes: 20 45.5%
  • Mexican State

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 9.1%

  • Total voters
    44
  • Poll closed .
North America is known for her unbalanced situation, that distinguises her for other parts of the world like Europe. This point of view has been in large part responsible for the unilateral stand of the United States. This could had been different if Mexico were a more powerful nation, capable of treat the domination (at least in the first half of the XIX century) and the Manifest Destiny.

By 1800, both Mexico and USA are independent countries. While Mexico is a constitutional monarchy that recently gained independence of Spain, the USA are distinguished for having created the presidential system. They are in a process of expansion: Mexico towards the North, the USA to the West.
In the middle of them is Louisiana, the French colony sold to the USA by Napoleon. However, the Mexicans claimed that this purchase was illegal - appealing to the San Ildefonso Treaty, signed between Spain and France -as it threats their effective dominion in their northern provinces of Texas and California. Mexico declares war on the United States. As both fight, Great Britain, the rising maritime power, enters as an arbiter in the conflict. She decides to create, with the support of the Creoles, in the lower bassin of the Mississipi, in the middle of the two emerging countries a third country: la République de Louisiane. This puts and end, although temporary, to the boundary conflicts between the powers of America.
 
Mexico would be independent for those years, after the revolt led by Bernardo de Gálvez, former viceroy of New Spain in 1790 (an ATL in which he is not poisoned and sucesfully commands the Mexican armies against the Spanish). Spain is in war with Napoleonic France so she decided to negotiate with Mexico. The result of those negotiations is that a Bourbon infante would occupy the throne of the new monarchy and de Gálvez would become the Prime Minister. Besides Mexico will have to pay an enormous debt to Spain for the wastes that the metropol incurred during near 300 years of domination.
 
I voted for the trilingual state thing, but I would assume that French would predominate and thus be the main language of communication (so instead of a Belgium-like example, more of a Québec-like example).
 
The trilingual republic would be very interesting. I doubt somehow though that they could withstand the full brunt of the US.
 
While not in the Commonwealth of Nations, I think the UK would come to Louisiana's defense. I could also see the UK gaining rights to dock the RN in their ports. And unless Mexico really improves their country, they would want Louisianna as a buffer. RN ships in these cities and a blocked Mississippi are still going to make the US rather annoyed though, so I can see a war on the way. Maybe on the pretext of runaway slaves being harbored in Louisiana, and this property needs to be returned.

If a war does start this way the North of the US may cede from the union of the basis of the abolitionist movement. Now the US (southern states) are in a two front war. 1) with Louisiana & 2) the ceded northern states.

Is this before or after the Monroe Doctrine though? This would play a major role in how things move.
 
As both fight, Great Britain, the rising maritime power, enters as an arbiter in the conflict. She decides to create, with the support of the Creoles, in the lower bassin of the Mississipi, in the middle of the two emerging countries a third country: la République de Louisiane. This puts an end, although temporary, to the boundary conflicts between the powers of America.

Grammar problem. French nouns need the article, so since Louisiana in French is feminine (sorry, Louis), it's la Louisiane. Thus the name of the country is la République de la Louisiane.
 
The Battle of New Orleans was over something like this. The British, I've been told, don't even consider it a part of the War of 1812. Anyway, I suspect a hemmed in US will be even more aggressive and certainly more militaristic. Even if Louisiane defends itself (heaven's knows a much stronger Mexico couldn't), I doubt the US will be much less unilateral than it is now. That's a feature of Anglosaxon culture. The British were never multilateral, they were just very good at duping others into dying on their behalf (not that Brits weren't willing to die with them). Americans prefer a more honest "win-lose and winner-takes-all" approach to international relations. It's also how our politics work. :p:eek:
 
I recently put forth an idea in the "British Mexico" thread of an US-Mexican N. America, with Mexico and the US being roughly equal parts of a yin-yang. However, Mexico isn't realy in a position to check the US expansion in Mississippi (or much anywhere early on) for a few simple reasons.

1. Mexico can barely control what she does have, let alone influence something far away from anything she owns. Even after the Mexican-American War, the fertile (gold filled) lands of California were mostly empty, dispite being controlled by Mexico for decades. An idea of what you're imagining would be if the original 13 US states tried to prevent Mexico from expanding into California.

2. Louisianna is the jugular of the US's midwest/west until trains come into being. By controling New Orleans, one could shut off all the river trade of most anything west of the Appalachian Mtns., potentially ripping away half the US. The CSA knew this, and they initially expected the entire midwest to either join them in revolting or force New England into peace so trade could continue. More importantly, Jefferson knew this. Despite being pro-France and against foreign entanglements, Jefferson was prepared to create an Anglo-American alliance so that the US could take New Orleans from whoever else held it. The Louisiana Purchase did more than give Napoleon money, it also prevented a real French-American war. New Orleans has to go, or the US is stunted from birth. And if New Orleans goes, so does almost all the rivers that go into the Mississippi. American geopolitics, as it were.

3. Distance. New Orleans is pretty damned far from Mexico, but much closer to the US. In a war over distance, who has the advantage?

4. Finally, military. This isn't as easy, as I'm not familiar with the militaries of either Mexico or the US at the time. I do know, however, that during and leading up to the war of 1812 that the US has good ship yards, an impressive merchant marine, and has a technique for bending wood for warships without weakening the sides. Mexico has fewer naval resources, isn't as economically strong, and a war may very well keep Jefferson from doing his disastrous Embargo Act of 1807, which ruined the US economy and prompted murmers of secession in New England.

And if parallels can be drawn from the much later Mexican-American War, Mexico will still have an unmotivated conscription army while the US will use more motivated volunteers/militias. The US can use it's proximity and economics to buy more up-to-date equipment from Britain (who's probably worried about Napoleon rather than a backwater region) while Mexico must contend against larger dificulties and the US navy.


And that's not even considering political instability in Mexico, or power struggles, or corruption, or a great many things that crippled Mexico OTL. In my attempt at a greater Mexico, my first big difference was to give Mexico a stronger democratic tradition, which helped mend corruption and give more social stability. Even then, the big thing to keep the US from trouncing it early in a Mexican-American War analogue was to keep them with good relations (no Texas revolt, for example). A war such as you describe wouldn't help that. At best, it might be a stalemate, at worst (for US) Mexico brings about some treaty that US settlers just ignore. And that's not even a Mexican defeat.


I guess what I'm saying is that New Orleans is much too early to hedge western expansion. The US has a major interest in holding it, Mexico is too far away to have the same interest in keeping the US from their, and a war wouldn't be decisive. However, if Mexico can keep from being walked over in the Mexican-American war (as in not lose control of its north), then it could later be in a position to counter the US.
 
I'll try to simplify.

All US trade west of the Apalachians must go through New Orleans to be shipped else where. This is because river transport is much cheaper than shipping something by cart over the Apalachian Mountains. Thus, by allowing/denying the right of deposit in New Orleans, who ever controls New Orleans has an economic stranglehold over the west Apalachians. And because almost all the major rivers in N. America lead into New Orleans, New Orleans trade is vital to any westward territores.

So he who controls New Orleans can control the West. There were fears in the early administrations that the Spanish or French would try to strip away the western US by denying the US right of deposit in New Orleans. In fact, Spain did refuse to renew the right of deposit in 1798, leading Jefferson to make a point of getting New Orleans to insure future American western expansion. In fact, Jefferson resolved to make an alliance with Britain if he couldn't buy Louisiana from France (despite being a Francophile).

Thus, the US is commited to getting Louisiana if it wants to move across the Appalachians. It's not just merely western land to live on like the Great Planes. New Orleans is the most important strategic spot in North America in its control of the great American rivers. Possession of New Orleans, quite simply, is life or death of western expansion. If the US was ready to fight Spain, what would keep it from fighting an infant Mexico? Especially when it would be amiable to a British alliance in the region?
 
I get that. But, what I don't get is why France would sell Mexican land to the U.S. The Transfer back to French rule fro Spanish happened in 1800, IOTL. Here, KR has Mexico winning independence before then. He fails to make clear the fate of Louisiana vis-a-vis Cuba.
 
Oh, I see what you mean. When you said premise after my post...

I guess it's not all about me now, is it? :p

In that case, if Mexico is independent it's probably claiming all former Spanish lands while Spain still controls everything outside of the Mexican state (which won't have the same borders OTL). Mexico will expand into what's officially Spanish land as long as Spain can't stop them, but will also claim anything Spain does hold as their own. Or something like that.
 
Oh, I see what you mean. When you said premise after my post...

I guess it's not all about me now, is it? :p

In that case, if Mexico is independent it's probably claiming all former Spanish lands while Spain still controls everything outside of the Mexican state (which won't have the same borders OTL). Mexico will expand into what's officially Spanish land as long as Spain can't stop them, but will also claim anything Spain does hold as their own. Or something like that.

Which would leave Mexico at war with Spain even after its independence?
 
The trilingual republic would be very interesting. I doubt somehow though that they could withstand the full brunt of the US.


Actually In the early years...1810-1840/50, with the support of Mexico and Britain, such a Republic most certainly could.

Voted for the independent Republic though it will likely be bilingual not trilingual as Mexican immigration will be insiginificant and probably dirrected to California and Nueva Mexico/Tejas.

If we accept the premise of early Mexican independence, I still think its better for them to avoid a conflict with the US over Louisiana until something akin to the 1812 war between the Anglo-Americans and then intervene in favour of Britain. In that case New Orleans could most definitely be taken during the War and Louisiana stripped and established as a separate Buffer state between the US and Mexico to placate both parties. The Mississippi will have to be internationalized and the US will have to maintain its rights of Deposit in the immediate term for it to work though.

In either case what form of government is set up really will determine how the US and US settlers interact with the new republic. Though a C.M. is also not out of the question.

Immigration patterns will be different , as without the west the US may not be the Draw to immigrants as the ultimate destination, but merely the way station enroute....

Does the establishment of an initially French republic in the Trans Mississippi not havew effects on post Napoleonic France as well....being a draw for dissenters there and perhaps changing the course of the July Monarchy or the 1848 revolutions.

US Settlers will still come but not under the same auspices and perhaps in lesser numbers...preferring initially to settle the lands of the NW instead..bringing an earlier confrontation with the natives of both the old North and South west perhaps..before the US can seriously consider challenging the new Republic...that will be the thirties at the earliest i think.

With vacant lands in a French republic in the trans-Mississippi...they could prove a more attractive draw than New England for The Quebecois who in OTL migrated to the industrialising N.E. states. This will bolster the French element considerably, if combined with Louisiana being the ultimate draw of French immigrants that went to the US.

One can easily make a case for the US being confined east of the Mississippi. Perhaps even Spain is emboldened to hold onto Florida and settle it with dissaffected Cubans.
 
Which would leave Mexico at war with Spain even after its independence?

Well, Britain maintained forts on US soil and supplied indian raiders against the US after the Revolution. And I wouldn't be surprised if the US did the same against Canada, so it's not unheard of.

What was Spain's position at the time? Might there be a special reason they can't turn their attention towards Mexico, so they lose territory bit by bit?
 
Well, Britain maintained forts on US soil and supplied indian raiders against the US after the Revolution. And I wouldn't be surprised if the US did the same against Canada, so it's not unheard of.

What was Spain's position at the time? Might there be a special reason they can't turn their attention towards Mexico, so they lose territory bit by bit?

Spain was fighting Napoleon, of course. Nonetheless, the U.S. wasn't seizing (or trying to seize) Canada in 1784, even with border disputes.
 
With vacant lands in a French republic in the trans-Mississippi...they could prove a more attractive draw than New England for The Quebecois who in OTL migrated to the industrialising N.E. states. This will bolster the French element considerably, if combined with Louisiana being the ultimate draw of French immigrants that went to the US.

Whilst I can go gaga for something like this to appease les Canadiens français, there will always be French-Canadians going to New England. Why?

A. Geography. New England mostly borders Québec, so we're bound to get at least some French-Canadian immigrants regardless.

B. Cheap labor. Notwithstanding other immigrant populations, the French-Canadians were the largest immigrant group that worked in the mills. The pull of the mills will be there regardless. Whilst la Louisiane would be tempting for many French-Canadians, by going there it would most likely be a repeat of the rural lifestyle many already know, and thus why bother leaving for la Louisiane if only to duplicate what we already have at home? You would need more than just "the ultimate draw" to get French-Canadians going to Louisiana; and regardless there will always be French-Canadians in New England working in the mills, since the millowners view them as cheap labor. In fact, without the French-Canadians, the Franco-American population (especially in New England) wouldn't be as large as it is now.

C. The Catholic Church. The argument here is similar to the preceding argument. Whilst not ignoring the contributions made by immigrant populations to the Catholic Church in the US (especially the Irish, who packed the clergy with their own) and whilst not ignoring the prior history of the Catholic Church in the United States, I would argue that without the French-Canadians, not only would the Catholic Church not be as big as it is now (ex. RI, my State, having the most Catholics per square mile than any other State in the US (thus making us the most "Catholic" state in the US), with most of them being Franco-American) nor would the Catholic Church be as legitimised in the US as it is now.

Just some food for thought.
 
I will explain why I considered the option of La Louisiane (merci pour votre correction) being a trilingual country instead of a bilingual one, as some of you have suggested. Therefore, I stand, having this scenario Louisiana would be a trilingual country.

There was some Spanish immigration to Louisiana, basically to New Orleans, St. Bernard Parish, New Iberia and Natchitoches. Besides, if we consider Mexico as a more challenging country (having populated Texas) as it is in OTL, then it would be pretty obvious that Spanish will not be unfamiliar for Louisiana people and government.

However, we could agree that the distribution of the three languages, would not be the same along all the territory as well as it will be disproportionated. We can have in the western part, more influenced by Mexican culture, a strong Spanish speaking community, while having in the South the Cajun country, where French would be stronger. As we move east to the Red River (which would be a natural boundary also for languages) English would be predominant. The New Orleans' area would be, for its importance, trilingual. For those of us loving percentages I calculated that louisianais people would speak as their first language: 20% Spanish, 37% English and 40% French, while 4% other languages.

There are two predominant languages: French (in Wallonia) and Flemish (in Flanders). But there is also a third one, although spoken by the 5% of the country's population: German. Same case in Switzerland, when Italian-speaking people is a minority. However, in both cases, those languages (German and Italian) DO have official recognition. So, the trilingual nation in North America - whose idea I truly enjoy - could be possible.
 
Top