how can I achieve an independent Louisiana?

The Duke of Orleans gets stuck in thee States during the French Revolution and begins talking regularly with the Burr conspirators.....
 
It managed to grew precisely because it was not isolated, and a large part of the population of the early XIXth came from the United States, directly or indirectly, mostly because these were the roads avaible. It's furthermore really hard to have a plausible situation where France still keeps Louisiana but, somehow, can't curb down the Haitian Revolution : but even assuming this, it's still not that obvious that in such TL where France still keeps a Carribean presence this strong, most of planters still follows the same road as IOTL the massive disruption in French Carribean settlements (partially occupied by Britain) prevented a more "scattered" displacement.


It managed to have a growing european settlement precisely because it was not independent and directly tapping over the growing potential of independent USA (as an harbour and market for them, and door to regional settlement) : if not, it would have known the usual French carribean treatment (I'd dispute the overwhelming "gallic" character of the region, unless arguing that late XVIIIth or early XIXth Haiti or Martinique were so, which is obviously false), with a crushing servile population with a layer of planters and without great incitative for settlement on this.
Note that New Orleans up to the 1850's was basically this, even if less so that it used to be.

With Louisiana, regardless of the reason, not being tied up with a North American ensemble (would it be colonial or independent) such dynamics would play much less importantly, probably turning New Orleans into Guadeloupe, except on the mainland.

WHich says more about regional identities, than an actual French (I suppose that Gallic means metropolitain or close-enough, rather than Carribean) strong presence in Louisiana (again, which was barely noticable for most of its history, and essentially because nodoby really rivaled in the region). If not for the metissed population (whom reproduction more or less halted by the XIXth century) and the servile population (mostly because of plantations ownership), Francophone population would have been overwelmed significantly earlier by anglophone and germanophone immigration (again, we're basically counting on a Haitian Revolution still happening, when it was a really particular event, for what matter its causes).


Founders of Saint Louis were New-Orleaners merchants in 1764, as a prospective chief place for Upper Louisiana. That it was underdevelloped in the 1760's and that it was the Spanish governors that presided to its first, extremely limited, development is kinda the point.

To summarize quickly :
- Any TL where Louisiana remains french long enough to enjoy, as unlikely it may be, maintained independence is probably a TL where Haitian Revolution (and probably French Revolution) are butterflied, so at best a slower Carribbeanisation.
- The whole of Louisiana was undernhabited and underdevelloped, to the point even French Canada passes as a crowded colony. It basically begs for a massive foreign immigration to get develloped, with all that it implies (such as Americans pulling a Texas on Louisiana).

I don't mean Gallic in terms of actual white French peoples. From what I understand, the term can be used for people heavily influenced by French and therefore Gallic culture. The reason I would use this, is to catch non ethnic French peoples and languages derived from French or mixed within it spoken in Louisiana.
 
Small note, Saint-Louis is not technically a French city. It's origins was within the Spanish period when its founders sided with Spanish colonial governor Alejandro O'Reilly. There were some villages along the Mississippi in the upper Louisiana, but they were not large and often would be subsumed later by the expansion of the river. Spanish rulers obviously referred to Saint-Louis as San Luis.

Bloody O'Reilly...I haven't heard him mentioned in a long time.
 
Top