WI: British Louisiana

Not sure, but the US would be less prosperous between 1812-1850. Britain during that period was far from free traders, which mean no free access to New Orleans, and this would hurt the US while benefiting Britain. Not to mention the Gold Rush would benefit Britain or Mexico more than the US, or the majority of the OTL oil boom would be outside the US. Many of the Irish population might decide to move to the West Coast (non US) for gold rather than the US. The US might exceed the UK (just the UK), but not Germany and the combined British Empire (much more powerful ITTL at the expense of the US). Note that a great power is still not a global power.

Of course the original US region was resource rich and would allow it to become a great power if its population exceed a certain level. If not, then it would look like OTL Canada than itself IOTL.

The scenario in which Britain control all the West means that it would control a big chunk of the OTL US gold and oil reserves. In other words, the economic warfare in the world wars would be vastly different.

The main reason why the US would be less prosperous is because the lack of easy access to New Orleans. And even then, how much would it take for Britain waive that with the right fee? It's been said that the hardest frontier for the United States to conquer was the Appalachians, and I'm in agreement with that statement, since an argument against that is rather hard.

California, here's an issue . Before the US conquered it, the non-American population was half Mexican, which of the non-Amerindians was half a mixture of various Anglos (American or British). California could persist as an independent state. This scenario is bound to make many Anglo-states in America, not necessarily aligned with the United States. They might even be British dominions. I think considering California's elite, the separation from Mexico City (whose demands were never popular on the frontier), and the Anglo influence, that California would secede from Mexico with British aid. And there were plenty of Americans operating in California before the Mexican War.

But the US will exceed Germany and the UK. The population is simply huge, the industrial capability using rivers, coal, and iron available is huge, and unlike Germany or the UK, the US has oil reserves readily available. Even confined east of the Mississippi, they will be of use. And Pennsylvania, Ohio has significant oil, and since I'd expect any state in that position to be economically advanced enough to exploit the oil in the Gulf of Mexico to some degree or another.

I think it would be a global power. It would still have a massive birth rate and a lot of natural resources. The main difference comes in that this US would probably be much more densely populated than OTL, as not as many people would move west.

Why wouldn't they move West, especially if Britain was offering them incentives?

More densely populated might be a thing, if you can get a few more million immigrants which might happen given differences in immigration laws between Louisiana, the United States, or any other state which emerges in the mix.

@metalinvader665 I am not saying it was inhabited, but that it could be. The area was mostly uninhabited except a few towns before the Louisiana purchase, at least in terms of Europeans. The north of Louisiane except on the Mississippi border has far higher than the nation's average in terms of Gallic genetics and the majority non Gallic in the north is that of African descent, so it is not necessarily something influenced by joining America.

It could, but there's still the people from Tennessee (and elsewhere) who had their sights on it and became the region's elite in time. Could Francophones from New Orleans and the region defeat these land-hungry Anglo settlers--perhaps in this Louisiana where there's an international border along the river between them. Andrew Jackson and associates could have opened up West Tennessee in the 1790s, and once a city on the Chickasaw Bluffs (like Memphis) is established, it isn't far across the Mississippi. Unless you have an international border there, and those land speculators and others would end up operating in British territory rather than American territory. Trans-Appalachia is a lot of land to fill out after all.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But the US will exceed Germany and the UK. The population is simply huge, the industrial capability using rivers, coal, and iron available is huge, and unlike Germany or the UK, the US has oil reserves readily available. Even confined east of the Mississippi, they will be of use. And Pennsylvania, Ohio has significant oil, and since I'd expect any state in that position to be economically advanced enough to exploit the oil in the Gulf of Mexico to some degree or another.
I don't know, but oil extraction was very significant in areas like Cali or Texas IOTL before ww1.

Note that in 1812, US population was just 7 million

If US population is limited to 50-60m by 1914, it would not surpass Britain before 1900 and would be weaker than Germany (and especially Greater Germany) and British Empire (stronger than IOTL). If limited to 30-40m, it would be weaker than Britain.
 
There will be a huge black population there, and the entrenched Francophone elite, and the fact there certainly won't be discriminatory laws against the French language as in OTL Louisiana. New Brunswick-levels of a Francophone/Anglophone balance are probably the least Francophone I could imagine Louisiana TTL.
.

How can you be certain of that? IOTL, every Canadian province except Québec had anti-French laws at one time or another, even New Brunswick. Québec avoided this fate because francophones never lost their majority.
 
Of course the original US region was resource rich and would allow it to become a great power if its population exceed a certain level. If not, then it would look like OTL Canada than itself IOTL.

Even confined to the east of the Mississippi, the US would still be one of the world's biggest countries, and it would have plenty of rich farmland to feed itself. I don't the US would need have any fears on the population front.
 
I don't know, but oil extraction was very significant in areas like Cali or Texas IOTL before ww1.

Note that in 1812, US population was just 7 million

If US population is limited to 50-60m by 1914, it would not surpass Britain before 1900 and would be weaker than Germany (and especially Greater Germany) and British Empire (stronger than IOTL). If limited to 30-40m, it would be weaker than Britain.

Texas and California had huge oil exploitation. And as I said, Pennsylvania and Ohio, the initial focus of the American oil boom. And many other states--Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc--have oil reserves which have been exploited and still are being exploited. The US is still likely to pioneer offshore oil because of Louisiana oil, and they'll still have a nice section of the Gulf to drill in assuming offshore resource allocations are anything like they are OTL.

Still more than any Latin American country (and all British territories in the Americas). And the US was having a nice natural population increase and large amounts of immigration. Since the American Civil War, America had to maintain a war against any other power. Since Italy and Japan were considered great powers, there is no reason the United States wouldn't be considered a great power either. America's only real challengers in Wtestern Hemisphere are Brazil and Argentina, who are rivals by geography, and can only gain the advantage on the United States by a brilliant warship design, like the Minas Gerais-class dreadnoughts.

For a conflict with Britain, all the US can do is conquer Canada. Not threaten the British Isles themselves. That's quite a fight, but third time's the charm--American Revolution and War of 1812 it was attempted (and failed), so maybe this time will? This United States is weaker than OTL with no potential to gain OTL's advantage.
 
I've just done some adding up, and it looks like a US east of the Mississippi with its other borders the same as OTL would have a total area of 959,083 square miles, making it the ninth largest country in the world. The population of the area (which obviously wouldn't be exactly the same TTL, but I think it's good enough for a rough guess as to how many people the land can reasonably support) is a bit over 179 million, which would make the eastern USA the eighth most populous country in the world if it were independent.
 
How can you be certain of that? IOTL, every Canadian province except Québec had anti-French laws at one time or another, even New Brunswick. Québec avoided this fate because francophones never lost their majority.

You are mistaken. Louisiane held a majority in the state alone and continued in cultural majority. The issue was the overt change to the schooling in Louisiane and the outright war on making Louisiane firmly American. When you categorize stories in rural areas (as I have done), you learn of grandfathers who attended schools and couldn't not speak English and were beaten by teachers and forced into English. It became a rule by which, french was made negative first following the civil war and then in the 1920s-1970s. In New Orleans, it was a simple removal of schools. During and previous to 1863, there was only one English school out of five, all the rest taught French to those of Gallic descent and to immigrants and likewise.Every archbishop at that point was from France and the Catholic Church in the area primarily operated to and in French, except to German migrants. Examples of this, are seen in every parish church in New Orleans, which still has heavy amounts of imagery in French, namely icons holding pamphlets in French and other similars.

Without the civil war, there would be no anti French legislation in Louisiane. Even today, despite all the pressure, French is the most common second language in the state and the number of French schools in cities like New Orleans continue to increase and the number of students as well.

Also, unlike Québec, Louisiane has entirely a civil law code. This shows a continuity following transfer to America, and, before the civil war at least, a sense of coexistence and tolerance in America of there being a state that in the greater part of the 1800s was anywhere between 65-80% francophone and still to this day, in terms of genetics, Gallic is the largest amongst the 'white' populace. So, in a way, they still do have a majority (amongst whites).
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I've just done some adding up, and it looks like a US east of the Mississippi with its other borders the same as OTL would have a total area of 959,083 square miles, making it the ninth largest country in the world. The population of the area (which obviously wouldn't be exactly the same TTL, but I think it's good enough for a rough guess as to how many people the land can reasonably support) is a bit over 179 million, which would make the eastern USA the eighth most populous country in the world if it were independent.

A bit over 179 million is OTL level.

But you must consider other factors as well.

The California Gold Rush, for example, raise US money supply, while also had a strong positive impact on immigration.

Or the construction of transcontinental railroads, which attracted huge amount of British capital and was partly financed by Gold Rush money, would be butterfly away. Such railroad construction would take place inside British lands.
 
Without the civil war, there would be no anti French legislation in Louisiane. Even today, despite all the pressure, French is the most common second language in the state and the number of French schools in cities like New Orleans continue to increase and the number of students as well.

Also, unlike Québec, Louisiane has entirely a civil law code. This shows a continuity following transfer to America, and, before the civil war at least, a sense of coexistence and tolerance in America of there being a state that in the greater part of the 1800s was anywhere between 65-80% francophone and still to this day, in terms of genetics, Gallic is the largest amongst the 'white' populace. So, in a way, they still do have a majority (amongst whites).

A lot of that is wrapped up with anti-Catholicism as well. The South always had Catholics, but Louisiana was a Catholic stronghold, and that had some issues, unlike smaller Catholic communities in the South.

Not sure what to say about the civil law code. I was once in a college political science class discussing political corruption, and a guy from Louisiana said that Louisiana's law code was the root of why Louisiana is one of the most corrupt states to this day. Sure enough, Googling "most corrupt states" tends to have Louisiana toward the top. Seems to be an interesting aside.

A bit over 179 million is OTL level.

But you must consider other factors as well.

The California Gold Rush, for example, raise US money supply, while also had a strong positive impact on immigration.

Or the construction of transcontinental railroads, which attracted huge amount of British capital and was partly financed by Gold Rush money, would be butterfly away. Such railroad construction would take place inside British lands.

As long as the US can conquer Amerindians in the way the US will get what it needs for railroads toward the Mississippi.

But in the long term, I don't think the California Gold Rush was the main reason for American immigration in the 1850s. Some Americans will accept themselves as British citizens (again) to farm the lands beyond the Mississippi and make a profit. At the very least, you can get the Italians who immigrated to Latin America.

Of course, the British are now resposible for Indian Wars west of the Mississippi.
 
@metalinvader665 I would need a specific example. However, I am
not sure it is the civil law code that makes the state corrupt. It is not as if a civil law code equals corruption.

Though, I will say, it is a very corrupt state especially in the past. However, I am not sure I would put that to the civil law.
 
@metalinvader665 I would need a specific example. However, I am
not sure it is the civil law code that makes the state corrupt. It is not as if a civil law code equals corruption.

Though, I will say, it is a very corrupt state especially in the past. However, I am not sure I would put that to the civil law.

The whole South was a particular corrupt part of the United States, even including places like New England, New York, and Chicago which had links to the Mafia into the 1980s. But the South was particular corrupt. I've read a book on 1950s-70s Tennessee politics--a friend of my family (older man well involved in Tennessee state politics--this was the 1970s-90s Tennessee Democratic Party BTW, which had serious force unlike nowadays Tennessee Democrats) says he met many people named in that book. Most of those people were basically corrupt politicians of some sort, and anyone trying to buck that trend would end up facing some issue in an election or what have you.

The South was extremely corrupt, and to this day is still very corrupt at the local level (know the right people, you'll find out all the bad things the county sheriff's deparment is doing, amongst else--that's just local government). Louisiana and civil law, a few people I've spoken with stated that's part of the reason Louisiana has such corruption (they said it's a major part of modern Louisiana's issues), but if you give even a moment's opportunity for corruption (or what people perceive as such), politicians will take it to gain benefit from it, especially Southern politicians. If Louisiana's law code didn't help make the state corrupt, Louisiana politicians would make sure they could gain something with it and end up helping with the corruption of the state for their future benefit.
 
You are mistaken. Louisiane held a majority in the state alone and continued in cultural majority. The issue was the overt change to the schooling in Louisiane and the outright war on making Louisiane firmly American. When you categorize stories in rural areas (as I have done), you learn of grandfathers who attended schools and couldn't not speak English and were beaten by teachers and forced into English. It became a rule by which, french was made negative first following the civil war and then in the 1920s-1970s. In New Orleans, it was a simple removal of schools. During and previous to 1863, there was only one English school out of five, all the rest taught French to those of Gallic descent and to immigrants and likewise.Every archbishop at that point was from France and the Catholic Church in the area primarily operated to and in French, except to German migrants. Examples of this, are seen in every parish church in New Orleans, which still has heavy amounts of imagery in French, namely icons holding pamphlets in French and other similars.

Without the civil war, there would be no anti French legislation in Louisiane. Even today, despite all the pressure, French is the most common second language in the state and the number of French schools in cities like New Orleans continue to increase and the number of students as well.

Also, unlike Québec, Louisiane has entirely a civil law code. This shows a continuity following transfer to America, and, before the civil war at least, a sense of coexistence and tolerance in America of there being a state that in the greater part of the 1800s was anywhere between 65-80% francophone and still to this day, in terms of genetics, Gallic is the largest amongst the 'white' populace. So, in a way, they still do have a majority (amongst whites).

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm aware of the state's French cultural legacy. I'm just not sure why British rule would necessarily assure better protection for francophones when it really didn't in Canada OTL outside of Québec.
 
If there is a US owned swathe of land north of Louisiana and south of Canada - and the borders touched only in Wyoming as far as I can see, you'll get US expansion in to OTL Minnesota, North Dakota. Given that Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana were only populated by a dispersed population of Native Americans it is possible that those areas become American by default. If that happens expansion west of the Rockies to the Pacific and as far south as the OTL Mexican border is possible.

It is worth noting that OTL Texas and west, and even the southwestern corner of Louisiana were Spanish not French territory.
 
I don't disagree with any of that. I'm aware of the state's French cultural legacy. I'm just not sure why British rule would necessarily assure better protection for francophones when it really didn't in Canada OTL outside of Québec.

Well I don't think they will protect them per say, but it would be difficult and troublesome to enforce such things in the strongholds in the south and central of the state. It took the Civil War and then 50 years of education for the US to take a serious anti French language stance. That is the US mind you, that has much more reason to enforce itself than Britain does.
 
I don't disagree with any of that. I'm aware of the state's French cultural legacy. I'm just not sure why British rule would necessarily assure better protection for francophones when it really didn't in Canada OTL outside of Québec.

Were there any Francophone areas in BNA outside of Quebec?
 
Were there any Francophone areas in BNA outside of Quebec?

There were (and are) sizable populations in New Brunswick and northern Ontario, though both provinces passed anti-French legislation anyway. Manitoba also once had a francophone majority but it has been almost entirely assimilated; the province is now over 90% anglophone.

Assimilation has also been occurring in Ontario, where about 500,000 people are native francophones, but only about 60% of them actually speak French as their main language now.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
If there is a US owned swathe of land north of Louisiana and south of Canada - and the borders touched only in Wyoming as far as I can see, you'll get US expansion in to OTL Minnesota, North Dakota.
What if Britain tried to close the gap between Canada and Louisiana, as ITTL they would be less likely to transfer the part to the US like they did in OTL 1818. Also, incursion into SoDak would be too deep into what is now British region. They would not tolerate.
400px-UnitedStatesExpansion.png


Besides, I think Oregon and Washington now would be more likely to become British.
 
Those borders are based on watershed regions, most notably the Continental Divide (it's kinda a shame they've mostly gone away except in some county borders, since they're superior to the straight lines as nowadays). Considering the lack of British effort in the Dakotas OTL, and the fact that using the watershed border is difficult because of how hard surveying it is (see also the Minnesota border), why wouldn't they just go with the 49th parallel up to the Continental Divide?
 
Top