WI: French North American colonization focused on Louisiana and not Canada?

In what way do you find the raw production of sugarcane in Hispaniola superior to Louisiane? The numbers regarding raw sugarcane production in the last century stand to reason that Louisiane consistently outproduces Haiti and Dominican Republic in terms of raw sugarcane production, with less agricultural participation and less agricultural land afforded to sugarcane.

In 2014, Louisiana produced 12,2-13 million metric tons of raw sugarcane, using 162k square hectares.

Haiti in 2014, produced 1,5 million metric tons of raw sugarcane, using an indefinite amount of hectares. Haiti at its height of production this past century, only reached around 3-4 million tons of sugarcane with between 150-200k square hectares.

Dominican Republic in 2014 produced 5,05 million tons of raw sugarcane, using 105k square hectares. The height in the past century, was in 1982, at 11,8 million tons of sugarcane.

So, I do not see the argument that these two nations on Hispaniola are superior in terms of sugar cane production, when these areas use roughly the same hectares and more labor participation, yet are far lower in production statistics. Mind you, growth of sugarcane has not changed much, it is still a very monotonous practice that requires large tracts of hectares, as opposed to more fertilizer. Looking at the world’s largest producer Brazil, it produces nearly 737 million tons, however, it requires 10,8 million hectares to grow such a massive number.

It should also be noted, that a large amount of lands on Louisiane are devoted to growing other types of cash crops that can be replaced with sugar. Cotton especially along the Mississippi coastline or in the north. Or even rice production.

We should also note, the French would rule Mississippi and Arkansas, the entire Basse Louisiane/Delta region and all the vast land that can be devoted to massively productive sugarcane plantations, cotton plantations, etc... So, how is the island of Hispaniola superior to the Delta region in terms of cash crop production or even sugarcane? It should even be noted, that single parishes, such as d’Assomption Parish in Louisiane outproduces Haiti yearly with less hectares.

The issue is not the land, it was the French rule and management of it. They put essentially no effort into agriculture in the delta region, aside from potato farmers from Alsace-Lorraine who were exported to Côte des Allemands (in Louisiane). Their devotion was to the fur trade and other agreements with the native tribes.
the issue is the growing season. the islands are more ideal for sugar.
you're comparing modern production levels. In the time frame we're talking about, production methods favored the islands. there's a reason all that land was bypassed for sugar production, and there's a reason it took so long to adapt the industry to Louisiana once the effort was made.

As I stated, I agree the land is valuable for farming aside from sugar, and I agree with you that French rule/management did not take advantage of it. I don't agree with you that Louisiana is superior, or even equal to the islands for sugar. But absolutely, sugar can be profitably grown there, especially if (as OTL) tariffs protect the domestic market from cheaper imports.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
A heavier French investment in Louisiana is one potential outcome of France losing Canada early to the Kirke Brothers and the Anglo-Scottish Union.

But, the way the French took into Louisiana in OTL was north to south from the Great Lakes. Even the voyages to the Gulf Coast were to find a river discovered from the north side.

So, an at least equally strong possibility is France not getting established on the North American continent at all. If Scots outnumber Frenchmen in Quebec soon after the Kirke's conquest, it may be Scotsmen who are the first European traders, farmers and town builders to spread from Canada and the Great Lakes down the Illinois country and Mississippi rivers down to the Gulf Coast.
 
A heavier French investment in Louisiana is one potential outcome of France losing Canada early to the Kirke Brothers and the Anglo-Scottish Union.

But, the way the French took into Louisiana in OTL was north to south from the Great Lakes. Even the voyages to the Gulf Coast were to find a river discovered from the north side.

So, an at least equally strong possibility is France not getting established on the North American continent at all. If Scots outnumber Frenchmen in Quebec soon after the Kirke's conquest, it may be Scotsmen who are the first European traders, farmers and town builders to spread from Canada and the Great Lakes down the Illinois country and Mississippi rivers down to the Gulf Coast.

Well that would be an interesting side effect of the English taking Canada earlier
 
In what way do you find the raw production of sugarcane in Hispaniola superior to Louisiane? The numbers regarding raw sugarcane production in the last century stand to reason that Louisiane consistently outproduces Haiti and Dominican Republic in terms of raw sugarcane production, with less agricultural participation and less agricultural land afforded to sugarcane.

In 2014, Louisiana produced 12,2-13 million metric tons of raw sugarcane, using 162k square hectares.

Haiti in 2014, produced 1,5 million metric tons of raw sugarcane, using an indefinite amount of hectares. Haiti at its height of production this past century, only reached around 3-4 million tons of sugarcane with between 150-200k square hectares.

Dominican Republic in 2014 produced 5,05 million tons of raw sugarcane, using 105k square hectares. The height in the past century, was in 1982, at 11,8 million tons of sugarcane.

So, I do not see the argument that these two nations on Hispaniola are superior in terms of sugar cane production, when these areas use roughly the same hectares and more labor participation, yet are far lower in production statistics. Mind you, growth of sugarcane has not changed much, it is still a very monotonous practice that requires large tracts of hectares, as opposed to more fertilizer. Looking at the world’s largest producer Brazil, it produces nearly 737 million tons, however, it requires 10,8 million hectares to grow such a massive number.

So one thing to keep in mind is that it wasn't until the 1790s that they developed a sugar cane that could grow in Louisiana.
 
So one thing to keep in mind is that it wasn't until the 1790s that they developed a sugar cane that could grow in Louisiana.

The question though, is whether that can be done earlier or not. There is nothing to suggest that this must be done in the 1790s by Étienne Boré and his Spanish assistants.

It is not as if a specific technological level must be reached before it sugarcane is grown. From what I understand, these things must be continually practiced and worked on, so to allow production of a cash crop in any environment.
 
Last edited:
the issue is the growing season. the islands are more ideal for sugar.
you're comparing modern production levels. In the time frame we're talking about, production methods favored the islands. there's a reason all that land was bypassed for sugar production, and there's a reason it took so long to adapt the industry to Louisiana once the effort was made.

As I stated, I agree the land is valuable for farming aside from sugar, and I agree with you that French rule/management did not take advantage of it. I don't agree with you that Louisiana is superior, or even equal to the islands for sugar. But absolutely, sugar can be profitably grown there, especially if (as OTL) tariffs protect the domestic market from cheaper imports.

My argument is not that the region of the delta is superior in sugarcane production. I was simply making a point using the only numbers we have (from this century and the past one) that sugarcane is extremely feasible in the delta region. There are also many benefits to choosing the delta in the long run over densely populated islands, as the Haitian Revolt showed to the French inhabitants of Saint-Domingue.
 
My argument is not that the region of the delta is superior in sugarcane production. I was simply making a point using the only numbers we have (from this century and the past one) that sugarcane is extremely feasible in the delta region. There are also many benefits to choosing the delta in the long run over densely populated islands, as the Haitian Revolt showed to the French inhabitants of Saint-Domingue.

But any place you settle will have a large slave population, because growing sugar is awful.
 
But any place you settle will have a large slave population, because growing sugar is awful.

Yes, but the distance between other slaves and plantations increases with larger territory. In Saint-Domingue, the large slave population had far less distance between each other and thus could more effectively ferment a revolt and coordinate their opening movements. Within the delta region, massive bayou and forests separate the slaves on plantations and limit their ability to coordinate large scale revolts

The only issue is that in the delta, maroon communities are more likely to remain dependent. But these communities will not likely have the ability to coordinate further slave revolts.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
This, or have the Kirke brothers still capture and then Charles I KEEP Canada, and Canada is guaranteed to be English in blood and language (I think Quebec didn’t even reach triple digit colonists yet). Basically “New England Planters” hitting it and Nova Scotia 120 years or so early.

France in that case will be like the Netherlands afterward, focusing its energies on colonies that are trade-profits first and settler-worthy second, even if Louisiana will be the nicest to make home in versus Suriname, Dutch Brazil, the French and Dutch West Indies, etc.



I also like this, especially if you give it knock-on effects from a lost Canada - IE, even more colonists, supplies, and even troops that would have been in OTL Canada by that point. Such a stronger-started Louisiana will definitely make all the areas of OTL Louisiana state, West Florida past Pensacola, and eastern Texas Gallicized just from spillover settlement alone.


An interesting side effect of this and the concept in the OP, is that the English colonial enterprise is more northerly focused.

The English have the east coast, maritimes, St. Lawrence, Hudson's Bay and Great Lakes from fairly early, while the French explore and develop the lands of Louisiana (east and west) by going upriver along the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico.

New Englanders have a clearer path to expansion west than southerners in the English colonies.

While it will take time, English America may reach to the west coast by the northern route through the Hudson's Bay's lands and then colonize the Oregon Country.

Whether Anglo-America becomes independent later is a question mark. Britain vanquishing French Louisiana may or may not be a pre-requisite for this.

Southern plantation agriculture will be divided between southern Louisiana and the southern Atlantic seaboard divided along the Appalachians.
 
Top