This seems to me one of the great mysteries of history that the Mississippi Valley never got settled to the extent by the French that the St. Lawrence did given the much better climate of the former.
Why did the French ever extensively settle Louisiana the way they did Quebec?
- Thread starter SuperCanada
- Start date
unprincipled peter
Donor
the 'much better' climate portion of the Mississippi is quite a way from the mouth of the river. The water flow is too strong for easy sailing, so extensive settlement of the central-northern section had to await steam, which was after French period.
Settlement of Illinois did get a good start.
They did try settling the south, but disease and natives made it difficult.
Plus, the French didn't really do much settlement of Canada, either. Most of the population was from natural birth. And, the climate was healthy, albeit cold.
Settlement of Illinois did get a good start.
They did try settling the south, but disease and natives made it difficult.
Plus, the French didn't really do much settlement of Canada, either. Most of the population was from natural birth. And, the climate was healthy, albeit cold.
Last edited:
I'd say a cross of two things:
1) Remember France didn't send many colonists in the first place, anywhere, much less Louisiana. It's well-known Canada got as many colonists in real numbers as it did through natural birth and not immigration, what with stuff like "the King's Daughters" of unwedded women sent over to start families that even allowed the natural birthrate to explode in the first place.
2) The Mississippi Bubble of 1720. I suspect the bubble bursting over killed any and all momentum Louisiana had as a colonial venture for rich and commoner alike, and what Europeans existed there were town/village-dwellers (New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile) or plantation owners, the latter of which tends to discourage population growth if only by locking out less-rich people from owning land or making money off of their own produce vs bulk produce plantations can offer. After that point Louisiana's main function was more or less strategic, allowing France to cut Spanish possessions in Texas and Florida from one another and encircle the English colonies with Canada (since Louisiana's official borders were "the Mississippi watershed" and Canada's "the Great Lakes watershed").
It says a lot that Louisiana's first colonial French culture that originally settled the province in the first place - the French Creoles - are almost drowned out in numbers, territory, and consciousness by the Cajuns that came over post-Acadian Upheaval.
1) Remember France didn't send many colonists in the first place, anywhere, much less Louisiana. It's well-known Canada got as many colonists in real numbers as it did through natural birth and not immigration, what with stuff like "the King's Daughters" of unwedded women sent over to start families that even allowed the natural birthrate to explode in the first place.
2) The Mississippi Bubble of 1720. I suspect the bubble bursting over killed any and all momentum Louisiana had as a colonial venture for rich and commoner alike, and what Europeans existed there were town/village-dwellers (New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile) or plantation owners, the latter of which tends to discourage population growth if only by locking out less-rich people from owning land or making money off of their own produce vs bulk produce plantations can offer. After that point Louisiana's main function was more or less strategic, allowing France to cut Spanish possessions in Texas and Florida from one another and encircle the English colonies with Canada (since Louisiana's official borders were "the Mississippi watershed" and Canada's "the Great Lakes watershed").
It says a lot that Louisiana's first colonial French culture that originally settled the province in the first place - the French Creoles - are almost drowned out in numbers, territory, and consciousness by the Cajuns that came over post-Acadian Upheaval.
Lusitania
Donor
What is not know by some people is that colonies such British New England and French New France had a much higher growth rate than southern colonies and Caribbean colonies. The lack of tropical
Diseases allowed these northern colonies to have higher grow while at times having lower immigration.
The French were very frugal with the sponsoring of settlers to the settler colonies. Also French Louisiana white population was greatly augmented by the arrival of most of Haiti’s Europeans following Haiti revolt.
Diseases allowed these northern colonies to have higher grow while at times having lower immigration.
The French were very frugal with the sponsoring of settlers to the settler colonies. Also French Louisiana white population was greatly augmented by the arrival of most of Haiti’s Europeans following Haiti revolt.
What's also surprising is that OTL Ontario didn't get much settlement from them either.
Last edited:
Lusitania
Donor
But there were not enough French settlers to do both Quebec and Ontario. In 1760 there were only 60,000 settlers all derived from 5,000 population that existed when France stopped sending settlers.
From a pre-quinine point of view, the climate of the Mississippi Delta is actually much worse than that of Quebec. Historically, a substantial percentage of European colonists in malarial regions died within a few years of arrival due to mosquito-borne illnesses. For example, around 25 percent of Anglican missionaries to the Carolinas died within five years of arrival, and the death toll for modern Louisiana wouldn't have been much better.
Louisiania's climate SUCKS (source: grew up in part of what was the Louisiania Purchase, and unfortunately still live here. Its miserable, and that's with air conditioning) . At least a large part of it sucks. Its hot, humid, mosquitoes are everywhere (and those mosquitoes are carrying yellow fever and malaria). Sure there was immigration much later, but if you're going to die of yellow fever as a Frenchman you might as well go to Saint-Domingue where you have a possibility of striking it rich first. But Louisiania just doesn't have that sort of advantage at all.
unprincipled peter
Donor
There's been a few threads on this, as you know.
There were plenty of potential settlers. For a variety of reasons, France put its priorities elsewhere, and didn't sponsor much migration, and the draw wasn't there to entice much French movement on its own. Spending on and engaging in war was top priority for the French. From the mid 1600's and on, France was constantly broke, thanks mostly to one war after another. Not much time, or energy, left for a settler colony, so New France was a half-arse effort.
I'd say it would be worse, particularly along the river valleys/"American Bottom" where most settlement would occur due to the fertile soils...
Good soils - miserable climate for your typical European; tolerable climate for a European - thick layer of unbreakable (at the time) sod good for nothing but grazing... maybe...
In general, not good for a high population density of European settlers....
Posters are making some very good points, as to why settling Louisiana, and the Great Plains via New Orleans was like looking though the wrong end of a telescope. In other threads related to this topic, I kept making the point that the United States was the most likely power to gain control of the region. The Trans Appalachian States needed to control the Mississippi River system, so it was more important to the Americans then any other power. They were coming from up river, so they didn't have to fight the current. They had a river system going all the way from Pittsburg PA, down to New Orleans. They had a large population looking for land, and advancing on a broad front into the Mississippi Valley. The Southern part of the United States had no problem developing Lower Louisiana as a slave based economy. The invention of steam powered river boats happened at exactly the right time to carry American Settlers up the rivers flowing eastward to the Mississippi, from the Continental Divide.
It had nothing to do with American Exceptionalism, or asserting Manifest Destiny, or any other silly argument, I never made. It was demographics, geography, economics, technology, and strategic interest. The United States had the decisive advantage of position over all it's rivals, so the odds were weighted heavily in it's favor.
It had nothing to do with American Exceptionalism, or asserting Manifest Destiny, or any other silly argument, I never made. It was demographics, geography, economics, technology, and strategic interest. The United States had the decisive advantage of position over all it's rivals, so the odds were weighted heavily in it's favor.
Lusitania
Donor
If industrial Revolution and steam engine was delayed 50-100 years be totally different scenario with interior not being settled as it was. Plus differences in speech and culture through the US make it likely to split apart. The US would been hard pressed to hold west coast without railroad if the people there decided to leave the US.
The U.S. didn't have a transcendental rail road till 1869, and held the West Coast with no trouble. True settlers used steam boats, but big wagon trains did it with pure horse power. Tow boats were less efficient but they worked well. Most settlers never thought of succeeding from the Union. The Mormons were looking for a new Zion, but the U.S. Army forced them to stay in the Union without rail roads, or steam boats. The West Coast was taken without rail roads, or steam boats. If the Civil War happened, without steam boats, rail roads, ironclads, or telegraphs the strategy of both sides would be very different.
unprincipled peter
Donor
The rest of your post made a lot of sense, but this one is a bit off kilter.
Getting the population to the upper valley is only part of the equation. They also need supplies, and being able to get back home after floating their harvests downstream to market. Prior to steam, that required land travel.
As you pointed out, getting a population across the plains west was feasible. With a bit of infrastructure, the same could hold true for settling from the south. Getting to Pittsburgh from the east coast also required infrastructure (Erie Canal, and roads over the Appalachians).
Any talk of USA is putting the cart before the horse. At the time period in question, the OTL USA midwest was part of New France, and was slowly being occupied/settled by France. Earlier, more extensive settlement of New France may mean the region remains French. From a viewpoint of mid 1600s, nothing is written in stone regarding which country is destined to occupy it a century or two later.
Belisarius II said:
They were coming from up river, so they didn't have to fight the current
Even by the ARW the roads to Pittsburg were pretty good. The mountains in Pennsylvania aren't as daunting as they are further south. The settlement of Kentucky was mostly along the Ohio River Valley, which is why I keep talking about Pittsburg. The Erie Cannel doesn't connect to Pittsburg, it puts you on lake Erie, which opened a new Northern water route to the West, via the Great Lakes.
Yes I'm talking about the period when the USA exists. The French, and Spanish technically owned the center of North America for 200 years, but didn't settle much of it. Outside of New Orleans the territory was populated by Indian Tribes, and a hand full of settlers. Most of the White Men in the territory were French, Spanish, and English trappers, and fur traders. Then the Americans came along, and they were interested in the settlement business. The question of the thread is why didn't the French settle the territory while they had it? Well a lot of reasons have been given, but I could add that the French just weren't interested enough to make the effort. They were men interested in quick profits in the fur trade, not taking women with them to settle down, and homestead.
They were coming from up river, so they didn't have to fight the current
Your points are well taken. Yes your right, you have to get home overland. but that's just the point. It's very hard to sail up the River, so you have to head north overland. It may be possible to develop a system of tow barges, but that would be very man, and animal power intensive, and until the end of the 18th Century there wasn't that big of a population. The U.S. by the end of the 18th Century had a far greater population, and supply base along the Mississippi then the Spanish had in lower Louisiana.
Even by the ARW the roads to Pittsburg were pretty good. The mountains in Pennsylvania aren't as daunting as they are further south. The settlement of Kentucky was mostly along the Ohio River Valley, which is why I keep talking about Pittsburg. The Erie Cannel doesn't connect to Pittsburg, it puts you on lake Erie, which opened a new Northern water route to the West, via the Great Lakes.
Yes I'm talking about the period when the USA exists. The French, and Spanish technically owned the center of North America for 200 years, but didn't settle much of it. Outside of New Orleans the territory was populated by Indian Tribes, and a hand full of settlers. Most of the White Men in the territory were French, Spanish, and English trappers, and fur traders. Then the Americans came along, and they were interested in the settlement business. The question of the thread is why didn't the French settle the territory while they had it? Well a lot of reasons have been given, but I could add that the French just weren't interested enough to make the effort. They were men interested in quick profits in the fur trade, not taking women with them to settle down, and homestead.
The Mississippi Valley is a lot more than just Louisiana. Missouri for example.
Ever been to St Louis in the middle of summer?
I personally like warm weather, but yikes... something about that area just traps the heat in and it has nowhere to go. Can't even rely on a good breeze to cool things off...
1) French Canada was founded in 1608, while Louisiana was not founded until 1699. Very big difference. If you give even a small settler population enough time, it should eventually grow to a significant size.
2) There was a drive to develop Louisiana during the regency of Louis XV (1715-1723), when New Orleans and Baton Rouge were founded. But then the Mississippi bubble burst and the government lost interest. It focused thereafter mainly on the Caribbean and especially Saint-Domingue.
2) There was a drive to develop Louisiana during the regency of Louis XV (1715-1723), when New Orleans and Baton Rouge were founded. But then the Mississippi bubble burst and the government lost interest. It focused thereafter mainly on the Caribbean and especially Saint-Domingue.
Last edited: