Cascadia without a doubt would be in the USA,. Yukon & Alaska, probably not. Yukon was too far north to become anything other then Canadian. As for Alaska, I guess it's conceivable that Russia could have sold it to the US. Don't see any reason for it to have occurred though. Till the gold rush, the place was considered a frozen wasteland, so why an actual United States would buy it is beyond me. And after it was discovered how valuable the territory was, why on earth would Russia sell it off? I doubt it would have gone Canadian, due to tension between the Russians and the Brits, but likely Alaska would become exactly what it is now: Home of the Tsarist government-in-exile (though lets not mince words: Canada's put so much resources into that place that Alaska may as well be a Canadian territory).
OOC: I don't think Russia would have been likely to discover just how valuable the territory was until well after the 1860s, though, that's the only problem; and if the circumstances are even partly similar to OTL, I'd argue that they'd have been quite likely to have sold it or spun it off at some point prior to 1900, quite possibly as an independent state(if a satellite).
IC: If you're thinking of the Commonwealth of Alaska, I don't think the Tsarist remnant that tried to set itself up in Anchorage(at the Northern Star Grand Hotel, of all places, in 1916) has been officially recognized as a sovereign entity since 1948.
Also, I think it's kinda obvious that Louisiana would go to the United States. Britain only got it when Napoleon's plans in Europe went south, and OTL it got plenty of American settlers anyway. There would have been some kind of arrangement to sell it off, Napoleon had little use for a territory he could hardly exploit as it was, so I'm sure a deal would have been reached. No idea if the Native tribes in the area would have been allowed to remain, or if the French settlers down by the Gulf would have been allowed the autonomy Britain gave them.
Well, I think it depends on how things developed afterwards. IOTL, a rather sizable of continental European immigrants ended up in Louisiana(including a few Catholic Germans, although many of the rest, especially the vast majority of the Protestant Germans, ended up in the former U.S.A.) after the 1840s Revolutions, and they tended to be indifferent to the Native Americans, by and large, and some, especially a not insignificant number of the Spanish, French and Italians, actually tended to be a little sympathetic.
In any case, I don't think we'd see quite what happened to the Cherokee and Creek peoples in the Carolinas, or Georgia(many were outright murdered, sadly, especially under the brief but bloody rule of John C. Calhoun during The Crisis in South Carolina in 1858), or the mass deportations that Texan authorities did in the 1880s and 1890s(the Trail of Tears), but probably not quite
I doubt that Mexico or their allies down south would have become such major regional players. Or that Mexico would have been let take Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain during the War of 1894.
Only for Cuba to become independent again for a while not long after-Cuba, although not recognized, was an independent republic after the successful revolt of 1892, and only Varadero, Pinar Del Rio, and a few other places where still held by the Spanish in 1894. President Diaz, unfortunately, ended up stabbing the Cubans in the back in 1898, and a decade long scuffle broke out; it wasn't until Diaz was finally tossed out on his ass and exiled to Austin, Texas, in 1906, that talks could finally begin.
The main reason this didn't also happen with Puerto Rico is because Alberto Carranza was a much more realpolitik savvy leader, and made none of the mistakes that the power hungry Lazaro Diaz had been privy to. As a result, Cuba would remain independent protectorate until 1992, when 50.2% of the populace voted to integrate with Mexico(Cuba became a protectorate of Mexico in 1947, after the brutal dictator Franz Trujillo was overthrown.).
Knowing how the natives were treated by American settlers east of the Mississippi, I really have a hard time believing that any native tribes in Louisiana would be allowed autonomy. Also, on the subject of Louisiana, how the hell would the US react to having a large French presence in their country? The very little French in western NY, Pennsylvania, and Virginia seemed to integrate into the US (and later its constituent states) fairly well, but Louisiana's a hell of a lot to take in.
It probably helped, particularly where Virginia is concerned, that many of them were Huguenots like some of my own ancestors.