Effects of large-scale French immigration into North America during the 19th century?

https://www.deviantart.com/caulaincourt/art/Dialectologie-du-francais-nord-americain-519940594
dialectologie_du_francais_nord_americain_by_caulaincourt-d8lk4qa.png

An interesting map about french speakers today in Continental north america.
Dark red are majority french speaking areas
Light red are minority french speaking areas
All the cities have (nothing) or used to have (they have a +) a french community.
Most importantly cities with an O in front of them had later french immigration in the 19th century, also walloons in door county wisconsin. All these could see much larger population.

No, but if France had kept primogeniture through the 19th century like Britain and Germany, they would have had much higher population growth. Napoleon probably could have easily re-established primogeniture as a decree at some point.

not sure it is enough, france was in the late 18th-19th century closer to its carrying capacity and had less room to grow. North-eastern france did grow a lot, so maybe if you add another early highly industrialized area in the south or center (there are coal deposits near the throat of the loire, as well as a bit north and west of the rhone, and both rivers had good farmland). You could also introduce potatoes in france much earlier. Also there was iirc more primitive birth control in france than in other countries. But anyway this thread assumes an already larger population to focus on its effect.

Moving that many people into French Louisiana in such a relatively short period of time would mean much more disease.
Yeah you're right, moving many europeans quickly into tropical climates has historically been mostly unsuccesful.
 
Last edited:
What about St Louis Missouri as a possible place for the French to settle?
It was. Look at any map of St. Louis and see the large number of French names in communities, streets, waterways, etc. Same with much of central Missouri. It's just that by the 1850's, the budding railroads and riverboats brought in people from everywhere else, especially Germany and Ireland.
 
It was. Look at any map of St. Louis and see the large number of French names in communities, streets, waterways, etc. Same with much of central Missouri. It's just that by the 1850's, the budding railroads and riverboats brought in people from everywhere else, especially Germany and Ireland.

Right so a post 48 French wave to the US would see Missouri as probably a suitable option. Louisiana isn’t that attractive.
 
They certainly would if they didn't have the demographic collapse they suffered IOTL.

It wasn't truly a collapse, but a demographic transition, which the rest of the West adopted in the XX century. The French population grew gradually in the first half of the XIX century and then essentially stabilized in the second half.

Demographic collapse is what threatens countries like Ukraine right now.
 
It wasn't truly a collapse, but a demographic transition, which the rest of the West adopted in the XX century. The French population grew gradually in the first half of the XIX century and then essentially stabilized in the second half.

Demographic collapse is what threatens countries like Ukraine right now.

Sure, but if it happened a century later in France, that would be enough.
 
Sure, but if it happened a century later in France, that would be enough.

It was entirely possible, even in the 19th century, for countries with high birth rates to experience sharp population declines. The example of Ireland after the 1830s, with the vast migration started by the Famine, is proof enough.

In the particular case of France, I think it possible that you could see large outflows of emigrants to sufficiently attractive overseas destinations without seeing inflows comparable to OTL resulting in sharp population decines, on the condition that things went badly enough.
 
Top