The entire current states of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska were included. In addition, parts of the states of Minnesota (west of the Mississippi River), North Dakota (most of the current state), South Dakota (almost all of the current state), and New Mexico (northeastern part of current state). Also parts of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado that are east of the Continental Divide, the section of the current state of Louisiana that is west of the Mississippi (including the city of New Orleans).
You’d have to do it state by state and add it up yourself, but all the info is out there via the Census.
Surely most of this is on places like Wikipedia.
You might have to do more work for the edges, but info on the whole states shouldn't be too hard.
Only thing I could find right off the bat was it had a population of ~15 million roughly 100 years after the purchase.A general question do anyone have some statistic on the population of the Louisiana Purchase today:
Population size
Race
Ancestry
Religion
Only thing I could find right off the bat was it had a population of ~15 million roughly 100 years after the purchase.
Keep in mind that it's highly unlikely a Greater Louisiana would retain anything like the borders of the Louisiana purchase. They'd want to make sure New Orleans is defensible so they'd at least have all of modern Louisiana within their boundaries likely a chunk of Mississippi (probably up to the Pearl River so most of the southwestern quarter of the state). And they'd almost certainly have most or all of Texas too in order to further protect their border as well as perhaps a situation like OTL. It's not inconceivable they grab everything to the Continental Divide and they'd likely try and get a Pacific port through either the Pacific Northwest or through Sonora. The former is easier since the area was nominally unclaimed and they'd have plenty of fur trade interests to give them a good position for negotiation there (even if they get far less land than the US did OTL), while the latter they'd have to seize a bunch of land from Spain/Mexico.While a independent Greater Louisiana would likely have a bigger population than the region have in OTL, thanks to investment being kept local and greater local urbanisation. I have a hard time seing Greater Louisiana even with a early settlement having more than half the population of cis-Mississippi USA.
St. Louis is more likely to be the largest city since it would be the industrial center.I mean it depends, if Spain keeps Louisiana territory I expect it to have perhaps half the population of OTL as an independent country today with half of that in New Orleans and area. Politically major problems as New Orleans people outvotes the empty land, and the rural farmers will hate that.
What’s the scenario? No Purchase?
I mean it depends, if Spain keeps Louisiana territory I expect it to have perhaps half the population of OTL as an independent country today with half of that in New Orleans and area. Politically major problems as New Orleans people outvotes the empty land, and the rural farmers will hate that.
What’s the scenario? No Purchase?
St. Louis is more likely to be the largest city since it would be the industrial center.
St. Louis also has the advantage of the river, being closest to the coal and iron in Missouri/Iowa/Minnesota, and being a border city. Climate too definitely as you said. I'd also see somewhere in the Front Range (could be Denver, could be somewhere else) being of major importance since it has coal and iron and is nearby a rich agricultural area and also potentially larger than New Orleans which has the issue of climate, flooding, and hurricanes. It's highly likely the capital is moved out of New Orleans at some point to somewhere more central and protected so maybe along the Missouri River like Kansas City or Omaha or even a little further west on the Plains.I agree but more for climatic reasons, you can more easily upkeep a large population in St Louis than in New Orleans and pre-air condition they have a easier time working further north, through you could also end up with Denver or Kansas City as it could be a benefit to move industry away from the border.
I'd also see somewhere in the Front Range (could be Denver, could be somewhere else) being of major importance since it has coal and iron and is nearby a rich agricultural area and also potentially larger than New Orleans...
Denver grew up as a major gold rush center and transportation hub and nearby Pueblo was one of the most important steelmaking towns west of the Mississippi because of the iron and coal in Colorado, New Mexico, or Wyoming so it's safe to say the Front Range has plenty of potential. Agriculture is because Eastern Colorado produces a huge amount of grain and makes good ranching land.I almost swear you told me before, but in case: I didn't know Denver had such abundant resources. Minerals makes sense, but agricultural surprises me. Is it on any trade routes accessible pre-railroads or not as well?
You’d also have to go outside the United States as the purchase included territory that’s now part of Alberta and Saskatchewan.You’d have to do it state by state and add it up yourself, but all the info is out there via the Census. Actually I guess based on this list you might have to go to county level on some states.
You’d also have to go outside the United States as the purchase included territory that’s now part of Alberta and Saskatchewan.