WI: France Keeps the Louisiana Territory

As it says on the tin, obviously sooner or later the fledgling US is gonna want that territory, but what if France refuses to sell? Does America join the dogpile on France? Or does it merely attempt to go around it? And what developments might we see if France does keep the Territory? Does it focus it's colonialism intents there, perhaps instead of in Africa?
 
I would rather prefer the French to have the whole pre-1763 Louisiana territory instead of the 1803 western half that they took back from Spain. If they had kept it in the peace then things might have been more interesting.
 
Texas Revolution: the Prequel, basically. Louisiana (the state) is the only part that could remain French. Anything else, they'll have to try their hardest to give the Anglos who will settle there a new "Louisianan" identity, since I don't see why French settlement would suddenly increase.

And the US absolutely demands control of New Orleans, since all the then-US West wanted it as a strategic port that made their economies function. The US is thus likely to back a Texas-like event once enough people settle beyond the Mississippi.

Also, they absolutely need to control Haiti, since it's pretty key to controlling New Orleans which in turn is key to controlling Louisiana--unless you're the US.

I would rather prefer the French to have the whole pre-1763 Louisiana territory instead of the 1803 western half that they took back from Spain. If they had kept it in the peace then things might have been more interesting.

Definitely, it also gives you an earlier POD to play around with.
 
Basically, they can't keep it. Which is why Napoleon sold it.

In the Napoleonic Wars, if the US doesn't end up taking it, Britain likely will.

If Britain doesn't (or if they hand it back to Spain, or something), the US will.

No way does Louisiana survive as French for long.
 

SRBO

Banned
You can but you have to radically change the French attitude to the area. OTL the amount of people who moved there was abysmal for some reason, and this seems to have occurred in every single French colony, there is not a single former French colony with a white french majority. Eventually the Eternal Anglo will take the land anyway, or the Spanish instead (they also had the problem similar to the French)
 
When France ceded Louisiana to Spain in 1762, a proviso of the treaty was that France could at anytime request the territory back and that it could not be alienated to another power without French consent.

How about this for a POD?

Perhaps the easiest thing to do is have the French never cede it to Spain and simply remain in control of it. The Duc de Choiseul in 1763 did organise France's largest attempt at colonisation in the Americas to date with the settlement of 12,000 settlers in Kourou, French Guiana. He had envisioned the formation of a settler colony to rival those of the other European powers in America and planned on recruiting and additional 14,000 Alsatians, Rhinelanders and Venetians. He cited the British colonies as his inspiration as they had become a large consumer market for British goods. The lack of preparedness (this was done hastily) coupled with the malarial swamps made it so that the majority of these settlers perished, with only around 1,000 survivors taking refuge in the îles du Salut (Isles of Health) where the strong breezes kept mosquitoes at bay. He also was in favour of taking in Acadian refugees to resettle them in France, with some 4,000 taking refuge in the mother country.

Perhaps if France simply keeps Louisiana and Choiseul decides that France pursue a policy of settler colonialism, they can direct the first batch of 12,000 settlers in 1763 along with the Acadians to Louisiana. Establishing settlements all along the West Bank of the Mississippi River to ward off British encroachment, though at this time there were still few British settlers in the region. If they can continue to recruit French settlers, particularly as the country was plagued by bad harvests in 1769-1770 and 1782-1789, it would not be difficult to have a substantial colony. If government policy is focused on this, at least during the Duc of Choiseul's tenure as minister of the crown, there is no reason that 100,000 European settlers could not be sent to the colony by 1775.

In Western Germany particularly there seems to have been a paucity of land at the time, and that would probably make Alsatians and Rhinelanders along with Swiss Catholics eager to take their chances for free land. In France itself, the government could also recruit settlers during times of famine along with petty criminals such as poachers and people evading the salt tax, using them to settle Upper Louisiana. With enough of an effort, there could be some 350,000 European settlers in the territory by 1789, not an unreasonable number compared with colonisation efforts in Brazil at the time.

Let us assume that the events take place largely as they did in France, without major butterflies. Firstly, the addition of so many more Europeans also adds to the number of African slaves in the territory, making the settlers much more wary of any metropolitan government attempting to ban slavery. Once the French revolution begins, the settlers in Louisiana would probably rebel against the French government in 1793 or 1794, declaring allegiance to the French monarchy. The British of course would be only too happy to intervene to protect the settlers from the revolutionary government. During this period, a well-established Louisiana could take in more refugees, initially from Saint-Domingue, but also from France. It would be interesting to see if a substantial number emigres settle there and the attitude of the Bourbons to the territory. I imagine the settlers would establish a Constituent Assembly in the name of King Louis XVII and later King Louis XVIII, but be resistant to actual imposition of royal rule if Louis decided to send a Governor-General (similar to what would occur in Spanish America later on). If some 50,000 or so emigres can arrive between 1793-1794, mainly lower nobility and or officers they can this new "kingdom" survive. Louis-Philippe (later King) IOTL moved to Philadelphia with his brothers in 1796, it would be possible that he might choose New Orleans instead, in an effort to establish his branch's influence over the country.

The question is, what happens come 1802 when the Treaty of Amiens establishes peace between France and the United Kingdom? In 1802 Napoleon reintroduced slavery in the French colonies, and was able to gain the trust of the settlers in the West Indies as he was more conservative than the early revolutionary governments. However, if Louisiana is a territory of say 500,000 Europeans and some 250,000 African slaves by 1802, would they really trust Napoleon? Also, the British might have made themselves commercially dominant in the area, and despite peace between Napoleonic France and Britain, might want to covertly assist the planters and bourgeois in refusing to recognise Napoleon's rule. This becomes even more problematic with Louis Philippe, who might assert himself as "Regent" or some other title and disobey not only Napoleon but his cousin Louis XVIII.

The border states in the U.S. contained some 300,000 whites in 1800, but these were mainly in the central portions of Kentucky and Tennessee, and for the time being the U.S. still had lots of empty space West of the Mississippi to fill with settlers, so if the Louisiana Government is smart, it can still recruit settlers from Europe to settler Upper Louisiana and have the area safe from American encroachment. Also, by the early 1800s Britain's need for raw cotton makes Louisiana a major supplier of cotton and Louisiana's largest trading partner.

If Spain still goes to war with Britain in 1803, the Louisiannais might take the opportunity to attack Texas during the war of the Third Coalition, as it is sparsely populated and an easy target. This could provoke a crisis in New Spain, and the question would be what the attitude of the British and American governments would be. The British might support Louisiana with arms to attack the borderlands, seeing it as an opportunity to strengthen Louisiana at the expense of Spain. Things could remain problematic and perhaps a peace agreement is reached where territory East of the Colorado River is ceded to Louisiana. Meanwhile up until 1807, when Britain abandons the trade, British slave traders sell thousands of African slaves to Louisiana.

Now if there is a War of 1812, the question is if Louisiana gets involved. Fighting a weakened borderland of New Spain is one thing, but engaging the United States is another. Assuming there are 650,000 whites and another 350,000 African slaves by 1812, they would be more populous than Canada, but still much smaller than the United States with it's 7 million inhabitants. If Louisiana prefers neutrality, it can sit on the sidelines and trade with both powers. On the other hand they probably would not want to antagonise the British as they are dependent on Britain's goodwill. They might also want to support British control over or even divide the Northwest Territory with the British, though this might be a stretch.

If Napoleon still loses in 1814/1815 things might get interesting if Louis XVIII's government attempts to establish control over Louisiana. After two decades of self-government under the auspices of Louis-Philippe, the government might simply refuse. The British would be buying more cotton than ever for cotton to supply the textile mills of Northern England and like the rest in Spainsh America, prefer to have independent states open to trade. Like Haiti in 1825, they might be forced to recognise the Kingdom of Louisiana.

Meanwhile in Quebec the French population's growth rate is continuing unabated. This might make the Louisiana government seek to recruit French settlers to Upper Louisiana from the Lower Canada. IOTL many began migrating to New England in large numbers, but it is possible that they can settle Louisiana along with other Europeans, from predominantly Catholic areas of Germany, Switzerland etc making the white population grow to 1 million by 1825, with the majority settled along the Mississippi River, with New Orleans being a city of over 100,000.

This of course would create several butterflies, as the United States' Westward expansion would be stalled. The country would become denser and probably more focused on industry from early on and making it a much more urban country, similar to a European state in that regard. Without Westward expansion, there is isn't as much worrying about admitting large areas of future slave territory by the North. This might actually cause a civil war to occur at an earlier date.

In France, there might still be an 1830 revolution, but the 10-year old Henri Duc of Bordeaux might become king (under a regency) rather than Louis-Philippe. This completely alters the course of history for France. For Britain, they are probably able to keep the Oregon Territory and whether or not Canada is formed is questionable. It might be possible that one large colony or later dominion consisting of territory West of the Continental Divide. IOTL large numbers of Americans poured into Western Canada in the late 19th century, quickly becoming loyal subjects of the British Crown in exchange for free land. One could see this developing, and having the area that is largely culturally American yet maintaining some cultural distinctions. For Mexico, what happens to the territory they lost to the United States? By 1850 Louisiana might have say 1.8 million whites with some 750,000 African slaves and I can see the French making their moves over the rest of Texas, as Mexican control over the region is weakened and cotton is booming, but not getting California. It might be the British who end up expanding their empire out west at the expense of the Mexicans, and even gobbling up Alaska at some point.

Louisiana remains a monarchy under the House of Orleans, and I imagine that abolition of slavery might come about by the late 19th century, similar to Brazil. Speaking of Brazil, his son Francois married into the Brazilian Imperial family and they might try to support or establish a monarchy in Mexico. The large French-speaking country is home to around 8.5 million whites and another 1.7 million blacks along with perhaps some 200,000 Indians. While not a great power, I would imagine that it would have the same standing internationally as say Belgium, Brazil or Argentina, and still being a British client state, however (much like Argentina) with the Brits investing heavily in railways etc.
 
One issue with Louisiana (and the rest of the Gulf Coast, and up to Arkansas or so minus the Ozark part) is that it too is a malarial swamp. The best land for activities other than slavery or profiting off slavery lie elsewhere, like in Missouri and such, although there's always opportunities for tobacco in Tennessee/Kentucky, as well as lots of places where you could establish smallscale farming (all the hilly land).

But very interesting TL. I think it underrates the potential of what happens in the Illinois Country? If it isn't subject to extensive settlement, Louisiana could lose all or parts of it, or be forced to sell. It's also going to naturally diverge from Southern Louisiana because of the difference of economic structures. That region will not have plantation agriculture, and it will also have much mining (the Missouri lead district). That region has some coal, as well as iron (mostly near the US border), so it's a natural place to establish early industrialisation.

The north is also going to want canals and internal improvements along the rivers. I did a thread about that, although it doesn't deal with the 1763 borders of French Louisiana. That's going to be a political issue in Louisianan politics.

Also, if they grab Texas, then they'll have Colorado and its coal as well. The *Pikes Peak Gold Rush will do much in settling the place. So there's another region which could easily have less than stellar opinion of the New Orleans based government. If slavery gets ingrained as a dominant position in the state, then that could produce the US North/South conflict (1850s one) miniature. As a conservative monarchy that will have ambivalent attitudes on the French revolution, you're also setting up the potential for a strong republican movement. And once you get enough division, the North of Louisiana plus Colorado and the West in general could split, in which case if the US has abolished slavery (no place to expand slavery too = slavery dying), I see the US aiding the north in their war. Britain might too, by impeding southern Louisiana's efforts to outright joining in.

You can but you have to radically change the French attitude to the area. OTL the amount of people who moved there was abysmal for some reason, and this seems to have occurred in every single French colony, there is not a single former French colony with a white french majority. Eventually the Eternal Anglo will take the land anyway, or the Spanish instead (they also had the problem similar to the French)

Quebec. But the situations that produced Quebec are very difficult to replicate in Louisiana proper (the modern state), let alone the entire Louisiana territory.
 
When France ceded Louisiana to Spain in 1762, a proviso of the treaty was that France could at anytime request the territory back and that it could not be alienated to another power without French consent.

How about this for a POD?

Perhaps the easiest thing to do is have the French never cede it to Spain and simply remain in control of it. The Duc de Choiseul in 1763 did organise France's largest attempt at colonisation in the Americas to date with the settlement of 12,000 settlers in Kourou, French Guiana. He had envisioned the formation of a settler colony to rival those of the other European powers in America and planned on recruiting and additional 14,000 Alsatians, Rhinelanders and Venetians. He cited the British colonies as his inspiration as they had become a large consumer market for British goods. The lack of preparedness (this was done hastily) coupled with the malarial swamps made it so that the majority of these settlers perished, with only around 1,000 survivors taking refuge in the îles du Salut (Isles of Health) where the strong breezes kept mosquitoes at bay. He also was in favour of taking in Acadian refugees to resettle them in France, with some 4,000 taking refuge in the mother country.

Perhaps if France simply keeps Louisiana and Choiseul decides that France pursue a policy of settler colonialism, they can direct the first batch of 12,000 settlers in 1763 along with the Acadians to Louisiana. Establishing settlements all along the West Bank of the Mississippi River to ward off British encroachment, though at this time there were still few British settlers in the region. If they can continue to recruit French settlers, particularly as the country was plagued by bad harvests in 1769-1770 and 1782-1789, it would not be difficult to have a substantial colony. If government policy is focused on this, at least during the Duc of Choiseul's tenure as minister of the crown, there is no reason that 100,000 European settlers could not be sent to the colony by 1775.

In Western Germany particularly there seems to have been a paucity of land at the time, and that would probably make Alsatians and Rhinelanders along with Swiss Catholics eager to take their chances for free land. In France itself, the government could also recruit settlers during times of famine along with petty criminals such as poachers and people evading the salt tax, using them to settle Upper Louisiana. With enough of an effort, there could be some 350,000 European settlers in the territory by 1789, not an unreasonable number compared with colonisation efforts in Brazil at the time.

Let us assume that the events take place largely as they did in France, without major butterflies. Firstly, the addition of so many more Europeans also adds to the number of African slaves in the territory, making the settlers much more wary of any metropolitan government attempting to ban slavery. Once the French revolution begins, the settlers in Louisiana would probably rebel against the French government in 1793 or 1794, declaring allegiance to the French monarchy. The British of course would be only too happy to intervene to protect the settlers from the revolutionary government. During this period, a well-established Louisiana could take in more refugees, initially from Saint-Domingue, but also from France. It would be interesting to see if a substantial number emigres settle there and the attitude of the Bourbons to the territory. I imagine the settlers would establish a Constituent Assembly in the name of King Louis XVII and later King Louis XVIII, but be resistant to actual imposition of royal rule if Louis decided to send a Governor-General (similar to what would occur in Spanish America later on). If some 50,000 or so emigres can arrive between 1793-1794, mainly lower nobility and or officers they can this new "kingdom" survive. Louis-Philippe (later King) IOTL moved to Philadelphia with his brothers in 1796, it would be possible that he might choose New Orleans instead, in an effort to establish his branch's influence over the country.

The question is, what happens come 1802 when the Treaty of Amiens establishes peace between France and the United Kingdom? In 1802 Napoleon reintroduced slavery in the French colonies, and was able to gain the trust of the settlers in the West Indies as he was more conservative than the early revolutionary governments. However, if Louisiana is a territory of say 500,000 Europeans and some 250,000 African slaves by 1802, would they really trust Napoleon? Also, the British might have made themselves commercially dominant in the area, and despite peace between Napoleonic France and Britain, might want to covertly assist the planters and bourgeois in refusing to recognise Napoleon's rule. This becomes even more problematic with Louis Philippe, who might assert himself as "Regent" or some other title and disobey not only Napoleon but his cousin Louis XVIII.

The border states in the U.S. contained some 300,000 whites in 1800, but these were mainly in the central portions of Kentucky and Tennessee, and for the time being the U.S. still had lots of empty space West of the Mississippi to fill with settlers, so if the Louisiana Government is smart, it can still recruit settlers from Europe to settler Upper Louisiana and have the area safe from American encroachment. Also, by the early 1800s Britain's need for raw cotton makes Louisiana a major supplier of cotton and Louisiana's largest trading partner.

If Spain still goes to war with Britain in 1803, the Louisiannais might take the opportunity to attack Texas during the war of the Third Coalition, as it is sparsely populated and an easy target. This could provoke a crisis in New Spain, and the question would be what the attitude of the British and American governments would be. The British might support Louisiana with arms to attack the borderlands, seeing it as an opportunity to strengthen Louisiana at the expense of Spain. Things could remain problematic and perhaps a peace agreement is reached where territory East of the Colorado River is ceded to Louisiana. Meanwhile up until 1807, when Britain abandons the trade, British slave traders sell thousands of African slaves to Louisiana.

Now if there is a War of 1812, the question is if Louisiana gets involved. Fighting a weakened borderland of New Spain is one thing, but engaging the United States is another. Assuming there are 650,000 whites and another 350,000 African slaves by 1812, they would be more populous than Canada, but still much smaller than the United States with it's 7 million inhabitants. If Louisiana prefers neutrality, it can sit on the sidelines and trade with both powers. On the other hand they probably would not want to antagonise the British as they are dependent on Britain's goodwill. They might also want to support British control over or even divide the Northwest Territory with the British, though this might be a stretch.

If Napoleon still loses in 1814/1815 things might get interesting if Louis XVIII's government attempts to establish control over Louisiana. After two decades of self-government under the auspices of Louis-Philippe, the government might simply refuse. The British would be buying more cotton than ever for cotton to supply the textile mills of Northern England and like the rest in Spainsh America, prefer to have independent states open to trade. Like Haiti in 1825, they might be forced to recognise the Kingdom of Louisiana.

Meanwhile in Quebec the French population's growth rate is continuing unabated. This might make the Louisiana government seek to recruit French settlers to Upper Louisiana from the Lower Canada. IOTL many began migrating to New England in large numbers, but it is possible that they can settle Louisiana along with other Europeans, from predominantly Catholic areas of Germany, Switzerland etc making the white population grow to 1 million by 1825, with the majority settled along the Mississippi River, with New Orleans being a city of over 100,000.

This of course would create several butterflies, as the United States' Westward expansion would be stalled. The country would become denser and probably more focused on industry from early on and making it a much more urban country, similar to a European state in that regard. Without Westward expansion, there is isn't as much worrying about admitting large areas of future slave territory by the North. This might actually cause a civil war to occur at an earlier date.

In France, there might still be an 1830 revolution, but the 10-year old Henri Duc of Bordeaux might become king (under a regency) rather than Louis-Philippe. This completely alters the course of history for France. For Britain, they are probably able to keep the Oregon Territory and whether or not Canada is formed is questionable. It might be possible that one large colony or later dominion consisting of territory West of the Continental Divide. IOTL large numbers of Americans poured into Western Canada in the late 19th century, quickly becoming loyal subjects of the British Crown in exchange for free land. One could see this developing, and having the area that is largely culturally American yet maintaining some cultural distinctions. For Mexico, what happens to the territory they lost to the United States? By 1850 Louisiana might have say 1.8 million whites with some 750,000 African slaves and I can see the French making their moves over the rest of Texas, as Mexican control over the region is weakened and cotton is booming, but not getting California. It might be the British who end up expanding their empire out west at the expense of the Mexicans, and even gobbling up Alaska at some point.

Louisiana remains a monarchy under the House of Orleans, and I imagine that abolition of slavery might come about by the late 19th century, similar to Brazil. Speaking of Brazil, his son Francois married into the Brazilian Imperial family and they might try to support or establish a monarchy in Mexico. The large French-speaking country is home to around 8.5 million whites and another 1.7 million blacks along with perhaps some 200,000 Indians. While not a great power, I would imagine that it would have the same standing internationally as say Belgium, Brazil or Argentina, and still being a British client state, however (much like Argentina) with the Brits investing heavily in railways etc.

I like this idea a lot. The settlement bit. Choiseul's ideas seem like they could've had legs if he'd had a better knowledge of the area (mosquito infested bayous etc). I wanted an idea for the settlement of Louisiana in my TL and this sounds like it would, just that Choiseul or whomever might be the foreign minister at the time, suggests a better place to land the settlers. That said, if Louisiana has a population boom due to a successful attempt by Choiseul or some later minister (who might you suggest?), what might America (or in my TL, Appalachia)'s attitude towards Westward Ho! expansion be? And if they can't expand westward, what might be the result when their population starts increasing?
 
No one knew that mosquitoes carried parasites until the late 19th century. It wouldn't be until the late 19th century and early 20th century that scientists made the link between mosquitoes and disease. However, there was a theory about bad airs, hence the burning of fires during epidemics such as yellow fever.

Choiseul did seem to want to take revenge upon Britain after 1763. Hence his ambitious naval programme and the last and most ambitious attempt for France to establish a settler colony in America. He stated when Kourou was colonised that with 4 years it would surpass Britain's North American colonies in size and dominate the Caribbean Basin. While a bit optimistic, if France had really focused on Louisiana, it did have more resources than Portugal and Portugal often settled large numbers of settlers in areas which the crown was afraid of foreign encroachment (Northern Brazil by Spain) and (Southern Brazil by Spain).

Choiseul had said that "the English were only able to make their conquests during the last war by means of their northern colonies, which are almost entirely populated by whites". He wanted to protect the Caribbean Islands and therefore a nearby settler colony was vital. In the Caribbean he found that whites were often too few and unwilling to become reliable soldiers and preferred to establish a colony of settler-farmers, similar to New England or Pennsylvania. The goal was also to provide Saint-Domingue with cheap food and lumber and discourage smuggling from British North America, along with a source of soldiers and militiamen.

Settling a minimum of 10-15,000 settlers a year all along the Mississippi River Valley northwards would have not been an insurmountable task particularly for a country like France which was the most populous country in Europe at the time. The fact that 17,000 were recruited in Europe, and apparently 13,000 sailed (not 12,000 I mentioned above), shows that there was potential for France to undertake such a venture.

What is interesting is that Choiseul wanted a colony of white freemen akin to the Northern British colonies, rather than plantation agriculture, hence my assumption that settling them around Saint-Genevieve and Saint Louis, in Upper Louisiana would make sense. He was interested in Rhinelanders as they had begun settling in Pennsylvania, and had success. The Electorates of Trier, Mainz and Cologne which had been ravaged by the previous war seemed to be encouraging as sources of non-French Catholic settlers. Between 1680 and 1780 some 500,000 Germans emigrated from Rhineland, with around 100,000 heading to British North America, with over half arriving during the 1750s. The rest headed to Prussia, Hungary and Russia, so French America could be tempting, particularly for Catholics. In Pennsylvania the average farm was around 125 acres, six times as large as the typical German peasant holding, so the French could definitely entice a similar movement.

Alsatians were also targeted as they were subjects of King Louis XV and seemed eager for land, with many signing up for the scheme, and others settling on Saint-Lucie. As for Frenchmen, I imagine that the coastal regions where the population had been increasing could have rounded up some settlers or petty criminals. Even a decade of pursuing such an ambitious policy could have created a French-dominated Louisiana as a barrier to British North America. What I do suspect however, is if the settlers are numerous enough they might begin encroaching on British land East of the Mississippi, provoking a war or if the American War occurs as IOTL, the French may obtain some land along the Western Mississippi as compensation for their aid.
 
Okay so if France keeps Louisiana I think we can all agree that the United States would want that land. Manifest Destiny was very strong at the time. They would at least try to take New Orleans. There are two different scenarios. Scenario 1: United States invades and France loses or just doesn't care. Scenario 2: United States invades but Napoleon Just won't let go and fight a war which america loses. But eventually United states buys it from France
 
Okay so if France keeps Louisiana I think we can all agree that the United States would want that land. Manifest Destiny was very strong at the time. They would at least try to take New Orleans. There are two different scenarios. Scenario 1: United States invades and France loses or just doesn't care. Scenario 2: United States invades but Napoleon Just won't let go and fight a war which america loses. But eventually United states buys it from France

Or scenario 3, the US states which are leading the lobby for Louisiana/New Orleans (Kentucky/Tennessee) join France, which is presumably better off than Spain and despite being Catholic, more easily able to accept the Americans for the time being.

If the trans-Appalachian settlers are on your side, any enemy like French Louisiana can be overwhelmed. Look at George Rogers Clark, for instance.
 
No one knew that mosquitoes carried parasites until the late 19th century. It wouldn't be until the late 19th century and early 20th century that scientists made the link between mosquitoes and disease. However, there was a theory about bad airs, hence the burning of fires during epidemics such as yellow fever.

Choiseul did seem to want to take revenge upon Britain after 1763. Hence his ambitious naval programme and the last and most ambitious attempt for France to establish a settler colony in America. He stated when Kourou was colonised that with 4 years it would surpass Britain's North American colonies in size and dominate the Caribbean Basin. While a bit optimistic, if France had really focused on Louisiana, it did have more resources than Portugal and Portugal often settled large numbers of settlers in areas which the crown was afraid of foreign encroachment (Northern Brazil by Spain) and (Southern Brazil by Spain).

Choiseul had said that "the English were only able to make their conquests during the last war by means of their northern colonies, which are almost entirely populated by whites". He wanted to protect the Caribbean Islands and therefore a nearby settler colony was vital. In the Caribbean he found that whites were often too few and unwilling to become reliable soldiers and preferred to establish a colony of settler-farmers, similar to New England or Pennsylvania. The goal was also to provide Saint-Domingue with cheap food and lumber and discourage smuggling from British North America, along with a source of soldiers and militiamen.

Settling a minimum of 10-15,000 settlers a year all along the Mississippi River Valley northwards would have not been an insurmountable task particularly for a country like France which was the most populous country in Europe at the time. The fact that 17,000 were recruited in Europe, and apparently 13,000 sailed (not 12,000 I mentioned above), shows that there was potential for France to undertake such a venture.

What is interesting is that Choiseul wanted a colony of white freemen akin to the Northern British colonies, rather than plantation agriculture, hence my assumption that settling them around Saint-Genevieve and Saint Louis, in Upper Louisiana would make sense. He was interested in Rhinelanders as they had begun settling in Pennsylvania, and had success. The Electorates of Trier, Mainz and Cologne which had been ravaged by the previous war seemed to be encouraging as sources of non-French Catholic settlers. Between 1680 and 1780 some 500,000 Germans emigrated from Rhineland, with around 100,000 heading to British North America, with over half arriving during the 1750s. The rest headed to Prussia, Hungary and Russia, so French America could be tempting, particularly for Catholics. In Pennsylvania the average farm was around 125 acres, six times as large as the typical German peasant holding, so the French could definitely entice a similar movement.

Alsatians were also targeted as they were subjects of King Louis XV and seemed eager for land, with many signing up for the scheme, and others settling on Saint-Lucie. As for Frenchmen, I imagine that the coastal regions where the population had been increasing could have rounded up some settlers or petty criminals. Even a decade of pursuing such an ambitious policy could have created a French-dominated Louisiana as a barrier to British North America. What I do suspect however, is if the settlers are numerous enough they might begin encroaching on British land East of the Mississippi, provoking a war or if the American War occurs as IOTL, the French may obtain some land along the Western Mississippi as compensation for their aid.

These men, despite their varying origins (the Rhineland, Alsace etc) would then become subjects to the king of France, and I would imagine that if the Americans have to start watching a more populous French Louisiana over the border, they would be less likely to want to ally with France in revolting against London? If they even do revolt against London to start with?

Also, how might these various people (I imagine that Choiseul wouldn't have just wanted farmers or the like (although that would also have helped), but tradesmen too), affect the development of the colony should they settle in Louisiana (even if it be under the crown of Spain after the 7YW) rather than Guyana? I mean, I read somewhere that Spain even wanted to settle Swiss cattle farmers in places in Spain itself to try and improve the economy and break the dependence on the wool-trade during the reigns of Felipe V/Fernando VI/Carlos III.

And if there are agricultural enterprises (grain farms especially, in the Upper Louisiana), might France see importing grain from the Americas as a way to alleviate some of the problems caused by the bad harvests of the late 1780s?
 
One issue with Louisiana (and the rest of the Gulf Coast, and up to Arkansas or so minus the Ozark part) is that it too is a malarial swamp. The best land for activities other than slavery or profiting off slavery lie elsewhere, like in Missouri and such, although there's always opportunities for tobacco in Tennessee/Kentucky, as well as lots of places where you could establish smallscale farming (all the hilly land).

But very interesting TL. I think it underrates the potential of what happens in the Illinois Country? If it isn't subject to extensive settlement, Louisiana could lose all or parts of it, or be forced to sell. It's also going to naturally diverge from Southern Louisiana because of the difference of economic structures. That region will not have plantation agriculture, and it will also have much mining (the Missouri lead district). That region has some coal, as well as iron (mostly near the US border), so it's a natural place to establish early industrialisation.

The north is also going to want canals and internal improvements along the rivers. I did a thread about that, although it doesn't deal with the 1763 borders of French Louisiana. That's going to be a political issue in Louisianan politics.

Also, if they grab Texas, then they'll have Colorado and its coal as well. The *Pikes Peak Gold Rush will do much in settling the place. So there's another region which could easily have less than stellar opinion of the New Orleans based government. If slavery gets ingrained as a dominant position in the state, then that could produce the US North/South conflict (1850s one) miniature. As a conservative monarchy that will have ambivalent attitudes on the French revolution, you're also setting up the potential for a strong republican movement. And once you get enough division, the North of Louisiana plus Colorado and the West in general could split, in which case if the US has abolished slavery (no place to expand slavery too = slavery dying), I see the US aiding the north in their war. Britain might too, by impeding southern Louisiana's efforts to outright joining in.



Quebec. But the situations that produced Quebec are very difficult to replicate in Louisiana proper (the modern state), let alone the entire Louisiana territory.

I do see a difficulty in making it Québec like simply because of the huge population on the US east coast. However do not forget that mid 1800s New Orleans (La Nouvelle Orléans) was double the population of Québec city and Montréal. It is not impossible to make Louisiana simply a majority francophone state within a greater English US. Without the civil war, New Orleans likely remains at least 50-57% francophone (like Montréal) as the schools that teach French remain in place (75% of the school districts in New Orleans were French only in 1860, which was immediately made English only by law after the civil war).
 
Last edited:
These men, despite their varying origins (the Rhineland, Alsace etc) would then become subjects to the king of France, and I would imagine that if the Americans have to start watching a more populous French Louisiana over the border, they would be less likely to want to ally with France in revolting against London? If they even do revolt against London to start with?

Also, how might these various people (I imagine that Choiseul wouldn't have just wanted farmers or the like (although that would also have helped), but tradesmen too), affect the development of the colony should they settle in Louisiana (even if it be under the crown of Spain after the 7YW) rather than Guyana? I mean, I read somewhere that Spain even wanted to settle Swiss cattle farmers in places in Spain itself to try and improve the economy and break the dependence on the wool-trade during the reigns of Felipe V/Fernando VI/Carlos III.

And if there are agricultural enterprises (grain farms especially, in the Upper Louisiana), might France see importing grain from the Americas as a way to alleviate some of the problems caused by the bad harvests of the late 1780s?

No comments?
 
Okay so if France keeps Louisiana I think we can all agree that the United States would want that land. Manifest Destiny was very strong at the time. They would at least try to take New Orleans. There are two different scenarios. Scenario 1: United States invades and France loses or just doesn't care. Scenario 2: United States invades but Napoleon Just won't let go and fight a war which america loses. But eventually United states buys it from France
The US really wanted New Orleans and everything along the length of the Mississippi... the rest, not so much. What the US does depends a lot on what the POD is... as given in the OP, it seems to be Napoleonic (he refuses to sell). If so, and the Napoleonic wars still occur and Napoleon is defeated, then the US might just grab the place and worry about the niceties later; maybe they'll offer the reinstated French king payment for it. If the POD is far earlier (as some on here have offered) and LA is a lot more populated, there is no Napoleonic wars, etc, then who knows?
 
The US really wanted New Orleans and everything along the length of the Mississippi... the rest, not so much. What the US does depends a lot on what the POD is... as given in the OP, it seems to be Napoleonic (he refuses to sell). If so, and the Napoleonic wars still occur and Napoleon is defeated, then the US might just grab the place and worry about the niceties later; maybe they'll offer the reinstated French king payment for it. If the POD is far earlier (as some on here have offered) and LA is a lot more populated, there is no Napoleonic wars, etc, then who knows?

Actually, the POD is for my TL where France sort of demands the Territory back from Spain if Spain wants a double marriage between Madame Royal and the Dauphin and the children of the Spanish crown prince, so around the beginning of the 1780s. But the main POD is back in the 1760s, so perhaps France never ceded Louisiana to Spain in the first place
 
Quick question, considering that France would be "more invested" in the Americas, how might it see the emergence of the United States or the Latin American Revolutions of OTL?
 
Top