Challenge: Louisianian Revolution

Tom Veil

IIRC, when Napoleon regained Louisiana for the French, he kept it secret for 10 years and didn't reveal that he had obtained it from Spain until turning it over to the US in 1803. If I'm a disgruntled Louisianan settler of any ethnicity, that's a causus belli.

How about this as the POD: from 1776-1789, during the American Revolution (which turns out exactly the same) non-English-speaking anti-establishment types steer away from immigrating to the 13 Colonies b/c of the war and start settling in Louisiana, especially upland in the Ozarks and around St. Louis. B/c, as new colonists they aren't major land owners, and b/c they tend to be Catholic or firebrand protestant, they are very anti-slavery.

Then, in 1796, Haiti rebels, right on time. The colonists find out that they've been sold back to the French. Getting into the general French spirit, they throw a revolution of their own, declaring that, by right of the 1789 Revolution, all people of Louisiana and Haiti have liberty, egalite, fraternite. With the Spanish barred from invading and Napoleon unable to spare the troops, the Louisianans quickly succeed and then fight on the side of the Haitian slaves. The result is a united Republique D'Nouveau Monde (since Louisiana is a monarchist name and Haiti is a local name).
 

Tom Veil

Extra bonus points on turning my previous post into a major power: as the Napoleonic Wars rage across Europe, USA, and Canada, Republique D'Nouveau Monde begins accepting any and all immigrants without regard for nationality or religion.
They become famous for this, and years later the French build a giant statue of Lady Liberty for them to put in New Orelans harbor...
They avoid war with the USA by carving up Florida -- West Florida (and Mississippi) to RNM, East Florida to the USA -- and agreeing to accept freed slaves and dispossessed Indian tribes.
Carving up Florida gets them into trouble with Spain. Finally, in 1830, it leads to war. RNM is totally victorious -- Cuba, the Dominican, and all lands north of the Rio Grande join RNM, while all lands south are granted their independence as the Republic of Mexico.
 

Thermopylae

Blackbeard said:
Good Idea with the Bourbons fleeing to New Orleans, so I'm going to build off of that. When the Bourbons are restored to power, they move back to France. New Orleans, once a hub for trade because of its capitol status, is just left, with hardly anymore trade. French settlers, left poor by the lack of trade, revolt against the few royalist soldiers left behind. The British support this revolution, seeing it as a front against France. The newly formed Louisiana Republic encourages settlement of nearby French territory (Parts of the Louisiana Purchase, which the US got in OTL, but ITTL, they don't get as much, because it is settled by Louisianians in the South.) The LR encourages foreign immigrants and expands into OTL Arkansas and Mississippi
Click to expand...

I like this idea, so let's go off that. The Bonapartists and Revolutionary factions within France, seeing it as unsafe in France proper after the Restoration, flee to the Louisiana Territory, and stir-up unrest there. They are able to form their French Republic in Louisiana, and due to their very democratic nature, find a strong ally in the US of A. The French, battered and bruised by war and economic collapse, have little choice but to put up token resistance, and then just let it go. I suppose this would make independence possible by c. 1820..?

I prefer this PoD because it helps to more easily eliminate the Louisiana Purchase and the low population, major problems with this timeline.

On what date exactly would Louis XVI likely make this transoceanic flight to Louisiana?

Now, I wonder if it's possible to have a Bourbon-ruled exile state in Louisiana, kind of like Taiwan is today. Of course in order to do that, we'd need a second PoD. So I guess I'm just going to focus on the Republic of Louisiana.
 

Dave Howery

one long term problem is that the US really wants New Orleans, for shipping and trade reasons, and they aren't going to happily settle for a solution that leaves it in foreign hands... US farmers will still be at the mercy of the whims of a foreign power, so far as shipping their produce is concerned; this is what brought on the whole LA Purchase in the first place...
 

stevep

Wendell said:
That could work too, but it might bring Louisiana into continual conflict with the British Empire. This is not good for the long-term survival of Louisiana.
Click to expand...

Suspect it would still have a better prospect than against an expansionist US. However even by the revolution the US population was getting so high that it was difficult to see them being held back from overrunning the entire region without something prompting massive immigration into it or strong external support from a colonial power.

Steve
 

Thermopylae

Dave Howery said:
one long term problem is that the US really wants New Orleans, for shipping and trade reasons, and they aren't going to happily settle for a solution that leaves it in foreign hands... US farmers will still be at the mercy of the whims of a foreign power, so far as shipping their produce is concerned; this is what brought on the whole LA Purchase in the first place...
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to own a port in order to use it. I suspect that the US in this scenario would press for a VERY lucrative trade agreement right away, a trade agreement the new Louisianian state really can't refuse...
 

Blackbeard

Well, looking at the period of French Revolution, his flight from France would be in 1789, rather than refusing and refusing until he's arrested, Louis XIV goes to New Orleans, to wait until things in France settle down.
 

Thermopylae

How might this affect Napoleon? IIRC, Napoleon was in French Lousiana at the beginning of the Revolution, so how would the dynamics of that region change with both Napoleon and Louis XVI (along with his royalist troops) in relatively close quarters?
 

Aldroud

Banned
There would eventually be war between Lousiana and the United States. It was either Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton who said "Whoever owns New Orleans is the natural enemy of the United States".
 

Thermopylae

Aldroud said:
There would eventually be war between Lousiana and the United States. It was either Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton who said "Whoever owns New Orleans is the natural enemy of the United States".
Click to expand...

I don't think so. This sentiment was only existant because Nappy was the ruler of France, who owned Louisiana at the time of the Louisiana Purchase. If there was no Napoleon on America's borders, then these sentiments would be far less popular, as is the case for an independent Louisiana.
 

King Gorilla

Thermopylae said:
One doesn't have to own a port in order to use it. I suspect that the US in this scenario would press for a VERY lucrative trade agreement right away, a trade agreement the new Louisianian state really can't refuse...
Click to expand...

Couldn't you have a split city of New Orleans along the boundries of the mississippi river with both countries having access to the port?
 

Thermopylae

King Gorilla said:
Couldn't you have a split city of New Orleans along the boundries of the mississippi river with both countries having access to the port?
Click to expand...

Somehow I don't think the US of A would have the diplomatic audacity to ask a nation to give up a portion of its capital.
 

Tom Veil

Blackbeard said:
No! I mean I don't know how to put the map in there
Click to expand...

Below the message box, in "Additional Options", click on "Manage Attachments." The attachment won't show up in the preview usually, but it will be there when you submit.
 

Blackbeard

no nows the box wont even let me upload it, *growls at screen and smashes*Well just imagine Lousiana, Arkansas, and Mississipi alltogether, if someone can get a map good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top