Louisiana Territory with a balkanized USA

What would happen to the Louisiana Territory if the constitution is never ratified and the thirteen states break away from each other in the 1790s.
 
I suspect you'd see a Texas situation eventually settlers rush in, claim independence , then form their own nation. Or the Brits get the Boer War 50-75 years early.
 
It would be interesting how the French would react, probably no short term impact.
However, it means there is nobody left to buy it from France after the Haiti revolt, so how will Napoleon pay for the operation? Will that lead to a shorter and less bloody pacification of the slave revolt?
 
Good replies. To be less vague I've decided to have the US break up in 1790. At this time Spain still owns the Louisiana territory. I think France still goes revolutionary but I'm not sure if Napoleon still comes to power but I don't think it's ASB. Interestingly I read that when Louisiana became Spanish the border between it and east Texas became blurred. An independent Texas that controls the mouth of the Mississippi would be cool.

Things get really interesting come the 1810s after the former states finish fighting over former US territory west of the Appalachians and Spain begins to decline.
 
Good replies. To be less vague I've decided to have the US break up in 1790. At this time Spain still owns the Louisiana territory. I think France still goes revolutionary but I'm not sure if Napoleon still comes to power but I don't think it's ASB. Interestingly I read that when Louisiana became Spanish the border between it and east Texas became blurred. An independent Texas that controls the mouth of the Mississippi would be cool.

Agree with you, I don't think the balkanisation of the US at that point has that much of an impact on France which is already engaged in its revolution. France's focus is inward at this point (and European) and not toward potential colonies so very limited butterflies.

However, it might affect the decision of the Spanish crown to give it back as, comparatively it becomes a bigger local power. Then I don't know enough to give a fully informed opinion on the matter
 
New Orleans is the key to much of the rest of the territory. Without available land easily had by settling a frontier, Argentina, Brazil, and the Cape Province may get an immigration boost. An independent nation in modern Texas is plausible buy likely to be a British satellite. A Confederation of New England (OTL New England states), a United States (OTL New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Delaware with southern/western end of Great Lakes) along with a Federation of North American States (Kentucky, Virginia, Georgia, Carolinas, Maryland, Tennessee, and future Alabama/Mississippi) arise out of the post-colonial conflict. Spain's decline means it loses Florida eventually while abolition first in CNE then in USA promotes relationships elsewhere. Cotton and cash crops make the FNAS wealthy and the coastal Carolinas see some of the first industrialization in North America along with central Massachusetts. Louisiana becomes hotly contested, the USA and FNAS e eventually agree to separate control at the Missouri River to a line of 42.5 degrees latitude. Texas becomes a FNAS colony on Mexican territory and Louisiana, along with territories upriver, are gradually settled in a similar manner. By 1845 the territory is overwhelmingly Federal, so France exacts a steep price but sells it to the Richmond goverment. Philadelphia promptly buys it's promised share and the Texican War in 1860 brings much more to the Federation.
 
balkanization in the 90's won't do much to the course of the French Revolution. Outside of some oddball freak occurrence, there's nothing logical to tie Napoleon's rise to the course of the 13 independent states. Maybe, without a unified USA to be dickish about repaying debts (the US was pretty bad after the American revolution. the ink wasn't dry on the peace agreement before they were trying to figure out how to get out of the alliance with France) France doesn't engage in the quasi war, but I'm guessing they'd do that anyway.

The Jay treaty between US-Britain is butterflied.

Presuming Europe goes as OTL to the OTL Louisiana purchase, the question becomes what does France do with LA? Nap no longer wants it. He has to save face in getting rid of it. The logical thing is to give it back to Spain, but he needs to get something back in return, and Spain is already being squeezed for everything France can get out of them. With the east coast balkanized, and no agreement in place, Britain may see a good opportunity to seize new Orleans and hem the states in while getting in a lick at France. Knowing this, Nap may be eager to dump it off on Spain before he gets embarrassed by Britain.

Louisiana territory is still going to get settled by a variety of means. the coastal states are still going to lose population westward. The eastern gov'ts won't be able to force the Indians to Oklahoma, though, and there'll be no central US gov't to massively depopulate the Indians in general. Eventually, my prediction is that the territory will break free from Spain and balkanize. OTL, texas saw the US as a good nation to join. with a whole bunch of smaller, weaker balkanized eastern state/nations, texas and the other breakaway states from Louisiana territory may well decide to stay independent.
 
The main thing that would determine what happens to Louisiana is how the breakup of the US affects the Haitian Revolution.
 
New Orleans is the key to much of the rest of the territory. Without available land easily had by settling a frontier, Argentina, Brazil, and the Cape Province may get an immigration boost. An independent nation in modern Texas is plausible buy likely to be a British satellite. A Confederation of New England (OTL New England states), a United States (OTL New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Delaware with southern/western end of Great Lakes) along with a Federation of North American States (Kentucky, Virginia, Georgia, Carolinas, Maryland, Tennessee, and future Alabama/Mississippi) arise out of the post-colonial conflict. Spain's decline means it loses Florida eventually while abolition first in CNE then in USA promotes relationships elsewhere. Cotton and cash crops make the FNAS wealthy and the coastal Carolinas see some of the first industrialization in North America along with central Massachusetts. Louisiana becomes hotly contested, the USA and FNAS e eventually agree to separate control at the Missouri River to a line of 42.5 degrees latitude. Texas becomes a FNAS colony on Mexican territory and Louisiana, along with territories upriver, are gradually settled in a similar manner. By 1845 the territory is overwhelmingly Federal, so France exacts a steep price but sells it to the Richmond goverment. Philadelphia promptly buys it's promised share and the Texican War in 1860 brings much more to the Federation.

No European state is "selling" a settler colony to a disunited USA....ever....
disunity in itself increases relative security by playing the disparate interests off against each other.
 
Assuming the PoD is in 1787, and in OTL Louisiana was transferred to France in 1800. In this timeline we could just as easily see France not obtaining Louisiana at all.

IOTL Louisiana was transferred to France in secret. If France loses control of Haiti I imagine they would simply return Louisiana to Spain and act like the initial transaction never happened. You might see a transfer of funds from Spain to France if France doesn't want Parma back.
 
Top