Vive Le Louisiane! Louisiana as an independent, Francophone Nation
- Thread starter Mirza Khan
- Start date
Tallest Skil
Banned
I am now about to comment on this very issue:
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY I'MOPPOSEDTOTHISINPRINCIPLEBUTITDOESN'TMAKEMEHATETHETIMELINE.
I have now commented on this issue.
Well...I've decided to do an update!
......
The Napoloenic Wars had ended in 1807, with Napoleon's sudden death, and Napoleon's remaining Marshalls had formed a "regency council" for his four year old son, agreeing after some thought to abandon Napoleon's planned invasion of Russia, and withdraw all French troops back beyond the Rhine and the Pyranees. Britain, rejoicing at the Corsican Ogre's death, agreed to recognize the Rhine as France's eastern border, and throughout the capitals of Europe, much rejoicing ensued (except, of course, in the Netherlands and Germany), as the crowned heads of state gathered to sort everything else out in the Council of Frankfurt.
After his overthrow in 1810, Charles Blanchot, erstwhile "Emperor" of Louisiana, had fled with a not inconsiderable amount of the public treasury, first to Quebec City, then to London, before finally settling on Frankfurt, capital of the newly created "German Confederation". Blanchot lived out the next decade of his life in Frankfurt, but he soon managed to squander away most of the money he'd bought with him in ill-advised business ventures and bad land investment schemes. Just barely hovering above bankruptcy, Blanchot the Lousianian "Emperor" became something of a local curiosity and a minor figure on Frankfurt's upper-class social scene. He refused to accept the legitimacy of Louisiana's elected government, and demanded everyone treat him with the respect an exiled monarch deserved (the real gentry in an out of Frankfurt, who didn't even consider Blanchot to be real nobility, obliged with much snickering). Blanchot hoped to find someone to support him in his bid to reclaim Louisiana's "throne", but, while the "Emperor" was a good attraction at parties, no one took him and his claims of widespread, oppresed royalist support seriously. Gradually, as time wore on, Blanchot slipped into obscurity, a condition which, to his still-inflated ego, seemed to be the equivalent of a living death. Around 1819, he fell in with some exiled Louisianais conservative politicians, and the conspirators began plotting their return to their native country, to lead a rebellion to restore Louisiana's rightful monarchy. However, the group made little effort to hide their intentions, and the Louisianais ambassador in Frankfurt-who, of course, worked for President Pierre Ebert-had them put under surviellence. Thus, when Blanchot and his little band of plotters stepped off their ship and onto the docks of Nouvelle Orleans in 1820, they were promptly arrested and unceremonously put in front of a firing squad, with Blanchot declaring to his executioners that "You may kill us, but our glorious Empire shall rise once more!"
Blanchot's only surviving child, Marie, lived out the rest of her life in Frankfurt, surviving on what was left of her father's funds. Ultimately, she married Ludwig, the titular Count of Sayn-a statelet of the Holy Roman Empire west of the Rhine, that was now part of France. The two landless royals had some success in business and raised a son, also named Ludwig, who became known as something of an adventuerer, first known for his mountain-climbing escapades in the Swiss and Bavarian Alps, and later serving in the Austrian army and leading some German mercenaries in South America during the Great Pacific War. By 1864, Ludwig was pushing 40 when the French and British, knowing of his connections to Louisiana's old "royal family", approached him with a deal.
After Pierre Ebert's presidency ended in 1836, Louisiana's politics had grown ever more corrupt. The Liberal and Conservative parties rotated in and out of government, each serving different parts of Louisiana's small elite. Both openly gave out civil service positions as political favors, and built up vast patronage networks, all of which cost money that the increasingly corrupt tax system couldn't supply. To keep their government afloat, Louisiana's Presidents after Ebert had turned to French and British moneylenders, who, at first, were happy to help. However, over the years the debt grew to astonishing proportions, and it became clear that the grifters and rackateers in Lousiana were too busy paying each other off to have any left for their creditors. Using the debt as an excuse, and wanting to regain influence in the Americas, the French decided to invade Lousiana, and got the British-who Louisiana also owed plenty of money to-to agree to cooperate in exchange for a say in running the postwar administration. Ludwig, as the heir to Blanchot's "empire", would be restored to power and legitimise the takeover.
Invasion got off to a rather good start in early 1865. Edouard Francios, serving his third term as President of Louisiana, answered the Franco-British demands for immediate debt repayment by protesting that he didn't have the money. The Franco-British, for their part, blockaded Nouvelle-Orleans and began shelling it, and in April the French managed to land troops outside New Orleans and surround the city. A Louisianais force came down the Mississippi to releave the beleaugured capital, but better trained and equipped French easily beat them off. The city finally surrendered in early June, and the French and British sailed up the Mississippi, taking cities as they went. By the end of the year, all of Louisiana was under their control, and Ludwig had been installed in Nouvelle Oreleans as Emperor Louis I of the restored Empire of Louisiana.
While the corruption of people like Edouard Francios inspired scant loyalty from most Louisianais-who, after the fall of Nouvelle-Orleans, generally accepted the inevitable-Louis I Blanchot's "Second Empire" (as it came to be known), very quickly developed the air of a fake, foreign-imposed institution. Upon his coronation, Emperor Louis I declared that the new Louisiana "fully intents to meet our international obligations", and set up a Franco-British "Debt Commission", which more or less ran the country. To keep the Louisianais in line, and to make up for Blanchot's intial lack of a real army, tens of thousands of French soldiers were garrisoned throughout Louisiana, making the "restored monarchy" feel ever more like a foreign occupation. Though Emperor Louis' mother had taught him servicible French, it still wasn't his native language and he always spoke it with a pronounced accent (Leading to his common-and disparging-nickname, "Emperor Louis the German"). The people of Lousiana quickly came to resent the high taxes and unfavorable economic conditions the new regime imposed, and although the old political elite had been largely discredited, opposition to the "Second Empire of Louisiana" slowly began to grow.
......
The Napoloenic Wars had ended in 1807, with Napoleon's sudden death, and Napoleon's remaining Marshalls had formed a "regency council" for his four year old son, agreeing after some thought to abandon Napoleon's planned invasion of Russia, and withdraw all French troops back beyond the Rhine and the Pyranees. Britain, rejoicing at the Corsican Ogre's death, agreed to recognize the Rhine as France's eastern border, and throughout the capitals of Europe, much rejoicing ensued (except, of course, in the Netherlands and Germany), as the crowned heads of state gathered to sort everything else out in the Council of Frankfurt.
After his overthrow in 1810, Charles Blanchot, erstwhile "Emperor" of Louisiana, had fled with a not inconsiderable amount of the public treasury, first to Quebec City, then to London, before finally settling on Frankfurt, capital of the newly created "German Confederation". Blanchot lived out the next decade of his life in Frankfurt, but he soon managed to squander away most of the money he'd bought with him in ill-advised business ventures and bad land investment schemes. Just barely hovering above bankruptcy, Blanchot the Lousianian "Emperor" became something of a local curiosity and a minor figure on Frankfurt's upper-class social scene. He refused to accept the legitimacy of Louisiana's elected government, and demanded everyone treat him with the respect an exiled monarch deserved (the real gentry in an out of Frankfurt, who didn't even consider Blanchot to be real nobility, obliged with much snickering). Blanchot hoped to find someone to support him in his bid to reclaim Louisiana's "throne", but, while the "Emperor" was a good attraction at parties, no one took him and his claims of widespread, oppresed royalist support seriously. Gradually, as time wore on, Blanchot slipped into obscurity, a condition which, to his still-inflated ego, seemed to be the equivalent of a living death. Around 1819, he fell in with some exiled Louisianais conservative politicians, and the conspirators began plotting their return to their native country, to lead a rebellion to restore Louisiana's rightful monarchy. However, the group made little effort to hide their intentions, and the Louisianais ambassador in Frankfurt-who, of course, worked for President Pierre Ebert-had them put under surviellence. Thus, when Blanchot and his little band of plotters stepped off their ship and onto the docks of Nouvelle Orleans in 1820, they were promptly arrested and unceremonously put in front of a firing squad, with Blanchot declaring to his executioners that "You may kill us, but our glorious Empire shall rise once more!"
Blanchot's only surviving child, Marie, lived out the rest of her life in Frankfurt, surviving on what was left of her father's funds. Ultimately, she married Ludwig, the titular Count of Sayn-a statelet of the Holy Roman Empire west of the Rhine, that was now part of France. The two landless royals had some success in business and raised a son, also named Ludwig, who became known as something of an adventuerer, first known for his mountain-climbing escapades in the Swiss and Bavarian Alps, and later serving in the Austrian army and leading some German mercenaries in South America during the Great Pacific War. By 1864, Ludwig was pushing 40 when the French and British, knowing of his connections to Louisiana's old "royal family", approached him with a deal.
After Pierre Ebert's presidency ended in 1836, Louisiana's politics had grown ever more corrupt. The Liberal and Conservative parties rotated in and out of government, each serving different parts of Louisiana's small elite. Both openly gave out civil service positions as political favors, and built up vast patronage networks, all of which cost money that the increasingly corrupt tax system couldn't supply. To keep their government afloat, Louisiana's Presidents after Ebert had turned to French and British moneylenders, who, at first, were happy to help. However, over the years the debt grew to astonishing proportions, and it became clear that the grifters and rackateers in Lousiana were too busy paying each other off to have any left for their creditors. Using the debt as an excuse, and wanting to regain influence in the Americas, the French decided to invade Lousiana, and got the British-who Louisiana also owed plenty of money to-to agree to cooperate in exchange for a say in running the postwar administration. Ludwig, as the heir to Blanchot's "empire", would be restored to power and legitimise the takeover.
Invasion got off to a rather good start in early 1865. Edouard Francios, serving his third term as President of Louisiana, answered the Franco-British demands for immediate debt repayment by protesting that he didn't have the money. The Franco-British, for their part, blockaded Nouvelle-Orleans and began shelling it, and in April the French managed to land troops outside New Orleans and surround the city. A Louisianais force came down the Mississippi to releave the beleaugured capital, but better trained and equipped French easily beat them off. The city finally surrendered in early June, and the French and British sailed up the Mississippi, taking cities as they went. By the end of the year, all of Louisiana was under their control, and Ludwig had been installed in Nouvelle Oreleans as Emperor Louis I of the restored Empire of Louisiana.
While the corruption of people like Edouard Francios inspired scant loyalty from most Louisianais-who, after the fall of Nouvelle-Orleans, generally accepted the inevitable-Louis I Blanchot's "Second Empire" (as it came to be known), very quickly developed the air of a fake, foreign-imposed institution. Upon his coronation, Emperor Louis I declared that the new Louisiana "fully intents to meet our international obligations", and set up a Franco-British "Debt Commission", which more or less ran the country. To keep the Louisianais in line, and to make up for Blanchot's intial lack of a real army, tens of thousands of French soldiers were garrisoned throughout Louisiana, making the "restored monarchy" feel ever more like a foreign occupation. Though Emperor Louis' mother had taught him servicible French, it still wasn't his native language and he always spoke it with a pronounced accent (Leading to his common-and disparging-nickname, "Emperor Louis the German"). The people of Lousiana quickly came to resent the high taxes and unfavorable economic conditions the new regime imposed, and although the old political elite had been largely discredited, opposition to the "Second Empire of Louisiana" slowly began to grow.
Last edited:
Found this titled "THE SPANISH REGIME IN MISSOURI". It was translated into english from Spanish historical archives. It might be of some help in your story.
One thing is clear. The Spanish authorities in Missouri were worried about the possibility of US citizens expanding into there depopulated areas. They commented that US expansion was pushing some of the fleeing natives there way. They also mention that US citizens would create a State whenever 30000 got together in one spot. They were not happy since this might give ideas to there own people.
http://www.archive.org/stream/spanishregimeinm02houc/spanishregimeinm02houc_djvu.txt
One thing is clear. The Spanish authorities in Missouri were worried about the possibility of US citizens expanding into there depopulated areas. They commented that US expansion was pushing some of the fleeing natives there way. They also mention that US citizens would create a State whenever 30000 got together in one spot. They were not happy since this might give ideas to there own people.
http://www.archive.org/stream/spanishregimeinm02houc/spanishregimeinm02houc_djvu.txt
Thanks!
Due to the US breaking apart, Anglophone immigration wasn't quite as high as OTL, and was counterbalenced by Quebecois moving south (Quebec was settled more extensively in this TL, and has more people). The Ohio Valley is majority Anglophone-I'm going to have to do an update on its relations with the rest of Louisiana-and the Mississippi Valley itself, and cities like St. Louis, New Orleans, and Chicago all have distinct Anglophone minorities (which, due to their connections to the ex-US and Britain, have a disproportionate influence on the economy)
The Mississippi Valley has a large slave population, as well as a good many free blacks, some of whom are quite wealthy. The upper-class free black community would have placed pressure on Louisiana's goverment to abolish slavery, and it was making some moves in that direction before the establishment of the Second Empire, which abolished slavery. I'll try and cover the social consequinces of this in another update as well.
This is a fascinating timeline to be sure. Just reading it for the first time today.
Some questions:
Why, after walking out on the Constitutional convention, wouldn't Acadia and Quebec merge into one polity, or at least create a federal alliance? Acadia in particular looked mighty vulnerable, poised between land-hungry Yankees in Maine and possibly vengeful British possessions in Newfoundland. Quebec at least had the sheer population (and despite religious quarrels, the goodwill of the new United States) to deter aggression; presumably if Acadia were known to be at least closely related to if not part of Quebec, they'd be safe.
I don't know my Francophone colonial history well enough to be aware of any cultural or historical reason why the Acadians would not simply see themselves as part of Quebec anyway, nor did I pick up on one in your timeline.
--subscribed, btw!
Oh, well, it seems like breaking up the vaster political units of North America is the theme of this timeline. I don't recall any hints that the Acadians had any reason to regret going it alone--at least nominally. In the absence of any hint of conflict between Quebec and anyone else, I'd think that as two North Atlantic Francophone former colonies side by side, Acadian culture has by "now" (latest update takes us up to 1864 or so) largely assimilated to Quebecois, perhaps with the distinction that Acadians are more maritime oriented while Quebecois are inland (though riverine) farmer types.
Which brings me to ever-deeper and more disturbing questions. To continue to dance around the periphery first--"Rupert's Land?" That sounds vaguely OTL historical to me, presumably this is the political title of what amounts to the domain of the Hudson's Bay Company. Well and good circa 1787, but as Quebecois population continues to grow, aren't they (and later, the independent Louisianiens) going to start intruding on the British claims there, somewhat north of the St Lawrence (pardonez-moi, rive Saint-Laurent!) but most of all in the West, around Les Lacs-Grandes. Sooner or later I foresee conflict with the British Crown over the northwest. Especially between Quebec and Britain--Louisiana has other directions to expand in and a Mississippian culture that probably finds the Great Lakes and lands to the north rather chilly, but the Quebecois have no other place to go and would find OTL Manitoba, Saskatchewan etc their obvious "manifest destiny," whereas unless the British have the foresight to deliberately pre-empt this movement by painstakingly settling farmer colonies via the difficult route though the northern passages to Hudson's Bay, the British interest locally is weak, mainly just to benefit HBC. The strength defending "Rupert Land" from some kind of Francophone expansion, probably Quebecois, would be in the company's claims being backed by the British Empire. Under those circumstances--if Quebec does have a nasty clash with Britain, they might suffer cut-off commerce and naval shelling, yet win on the continent. Or, Britain, foreseeing the outcome, brokers a deal with Quebec allowing some combination of Quebecois settlement of the land and continued HBC profits--either Francophone autonomy largely loyal to Quebec for settlers on nominally British soil of Rupert's Land, or ceding a lot of Rupert's Land to Quebec in return for a continued favored role for the HBC on Quebec's new soil.
Turning south---and east. What happens to the USA? It is true, individual Americans can still emigrate West, to settle in what is now Louisiana. But obviously, the whole identity of the USA is completely changed now. There is no longer the slightest prospect of the vast continental empire many early Americans dreamed up. If anyone has a grand Manifest Destiny now, it is Louisiana. The likelihood of any aspect of US history continuing as OTL is slim to none. Will New England attempt to industrialize as OTL? They don't have much prospect if they don't, but lacking the markets of an expanding West to buy agricultural and mined raw materials from and sell industrial and consumer goods to, can they survive on an industrial basis? Can they hope to trade, again without an expanding Western domestic market to sell overseas goods to and sell the products of to overseas customers? In the Middle Atlantic states--there is room for settler expansion for maybe a generation, and then they are in the same boat as New England. In the slave/plantation South--again, no new lands to establish new plantations in in Mississippi or Alabama, so the possible economic crisis of the plantation economy looms before it gets properly started. And OTL, a major source of capital for developing New England and other northern industry was investments of profits reaped by Southern slave-holders selling cotton from mostly the Old Southwest.
The United States will either fight Louisiana, much earlier than 1864, or it is a completely different society over there, nothing much like OTL Yankees or Dixie.
I know you mentioned the Hartford convention and Yankee secession, but why would that happen ITTL? The occasion for that movement OTL was the War of 1812, and that war was largely about conflicts between Britain in Canada and US settlers moving west. All that is pre-empted here, with Quebec more or less friendly and at any rate decoupled from Britain, and Louisiana first under the Spanish crown and then independent. The only issues left to have a War of 1812 over would be those ones that would draw Yankees into supporting the war rather than opposing it as OTL--impressment of sailors, issues of access to fishing sites, stuff like that. But without the vast backcountry to draw on, ITTL the USA is clearly weaker than OTL and getting into a war with Britain, even a Britain shorn of her base in Canada (but they still have Newfoundland/Labrador, at least until the Quebecois take them from them) is clearly a Bad Idea, impressment or not. So if anything I'd expect the New England States to cling tightly to the Union as their only protection, weak as it is.
So I'm getting the picture--the USA is a sideline in this timeline, and North America is effectively divided between French and Spanish speakers, with Anglophones being peripheral oddities. Even if a lot of Louisianiens and Quebecois wind up being descended from much the same ancestors as OTL US citizens and Canadians, they will speak French.
This brings me finally to the question of where Louisiana will go, which of course is what the whole timeline is all about.
By 1860, the USA had at least one sector--New England--that had caught up to the most industrially developed parts of Europe. And from that base a certain amount of industrialism could be found in any part of the Union whatsoever. Is either thing true of Louisiana? Is there some part of the vast Republic/Empire that has anything like New English levels of industrial development, and how machine-minded are the Louisianiens in general? Even if there is no place comparable to Lowell, Mass, of OTL, are there steam boats and mechanics and boiler factories to be found on the Mississippi as there were OTL? What about railroads?
If Louisiana fails to develop this sort of infrastructure, it might be an opportunity for the US, at least its northern half, to prosper, filling the role of industrial region much as in OTL. It would be awkward though--the Yankees could not rely on access to Louisianien resources or markets as they could OTL, while Louisiana would be vulnerable as well. Perhaps Quebec industrializes more than OTL? That partnership would be almost as bad as Louisiana/USA, but at least both sides speak the same language!
And finally, what about the West? Can Louisiana expand westward to the Pacific? (We also have Tejas loose from Mexico, perhaps it would be more natural for Tejanos to take California?)
I ask all this stuff because you've made me care!
Love the Louisiana flag by the way. It seems to me it would be kind of dark though, dark green bordering dark blue like that. Is there a way to brighten it up a bit, without losing its elegance?
-----
Edit---
What about California and the Pacific Northwest? OTL, after the Louisiana Purchase, the United States had a clear path to the Pacific Coast, and very quickly took it to establish settlement in Oregon, first via the long sea route to establish fur trading at Astoria. This brought the USA into an additional zone of potential conflict with Britain, which had its own growing fur trade establishment that became British Columbia. It seems that TTL Louisiana does not have the same sense of westward "manifest destiny" nor the seagoing mercantile cultural element of New England (Oregon settlement, even the overland part of it, OTL had a strongly Yankee element to it) and the Latin American politics suggests that sort of inertia too. So what are the chances that Louisiana will even seek an outlet on the Pacific? Will Mexico manage to hold on to California, and even expand north to the Columbia River or beyond? To what degree was British settlement of the Puget Sound area OTL driven by the need to pre-empt the Yankees, and would it therefore be deferred ITTL? What about Russia? OTL, both British and Spanish/Mexican designs on the Pacific Northwest coast were motivated in part by the desire to pre-empt the Russians based in Alaska. And the Russians did venture as far south as Fort Ross, in modern California not far north of San Francisco. Would they have a free hand to gradually work their way south ITTL? Logistics and demographics were against them OTL. The major reason they established Fort Ross was to set up a farming colony to feed their company operatives up north in Alaska. Presumably they passed Puget Sound and the Columbia/Williamette river valleys by because they were already preempted there by British and Americans, but if they could get to Vancouver Island and that region first, perhaps they would be strong enough not to dislodge. This would delay Mexican expansion northward which was partially a race to preempt them from California which they would not need to attempt now. Leaving prospects from San Francisco to the mouth of the Columbia for a later British incursion, an adventurous Yankee claim, later annexation by Russia or Mexico--or a belated Louisianien claim.
And back to the east and the Gulf of Mexico--paralleling the movement of Anglo Yankees into OTL "Old Northwest," ITTL Ohio, we had OTL the expansion into the "Old Southwest", that is Alabama, Mississippi, as well as Tennessee and Kentucky to the north, by Southern Americans. This as I mentioned above was the economic powerhouse driving the expansion of slave plantations and generating huge profits that fueled all sectors of the US economy OTL. ITTL if Southern US people are going to pursue similar opportunities they have to either emigrate to southern Louisiana and assimilate there as you envision northern US people doing in Ohio, or they will be tempted to seize territory from Louisiana outright. Assuming they are prevented from such filibustering, what impact do Southern Anglos have on southern Louisiana? Seeing the huge demographic boom the Louisianiens pull off, with that rapid population growth, it is easy to accept that the Anglos coming in at the north don't tip the cultural balance enough and that French prevails, eventually even in Ohio. What if there is a second stream of Anglos coming in though in the South?
Actually Anglos looking to make a profit as plantation owners might assimilate to French-speaking more easily than Yankee farmers. As somewhat pretentious people they probably have learned French already just for the prestige reasons, and their entourage at the plantations are likely to be locally hired (or purchased!) Louisianiens or French-trained slaves, respectively.
Some questions:
Why, after walking out on the Constitutional convention, wouldn't Acadia and Quebec merge into one polity, or at least create a federal alliance? Acadia in particular looked mighty vulnerable, poised between land-hungry Yankees in Maine and possibly vengeful British possessions in Newfoundland. Quebec at least had the sheer population (and despite religious quarrels, the goodwill of the new United States) to deter aggression; presumably if Acadia were known to be at least closely related to if not part of Quebec, they'd be safe.
I don't know my Francophone colonial history well enough to be aware of any cultural or historical reason why the Acadians would not simply see themselves as part of Quebec anyway, nor did I pick up on one in your timeline.
--subscribed, btw!
Oh, well, it seems like breaking up the vaster political units of North America is the theme of this timeline. I don't recall any hints that the Acadians had any reason to regret going it alone--at least nominally. In the absence of any hint of conflict between Quebec and anyone else, I'd think that as two North Atlantic Francophone former colonies side by side, Acadian culture has by "now" (latest update takes us up to 1864 or so) largely assimilated to Quebecois, perhaps with the distinction that Acadians are more maritime oriented while Quebecois are inland (though riverine) farmer types.
Which brings me to ever-deeper and more disturbing questions. To continue to dance around the periphery first--"Rupert's Land?" That sounds vaguely OTL historical to me, presumably this is the political title of what amounts to the domain of the Hudson's Bay Company. Well and good circa 1787, but as Quebecois population continues to grow, aren't they (and later, the independent Louisianiens) going to start intruding on the British claims there, somewhat north of the St Lawrence (pardonez-moi, rive Saint-Laurent!) but most of all in the West, around Les Lacs-Grandes. Sooner or later I foresee conflict with the British Crown over the northwest. Especially between Quebec and Britain--Louisiana has other directions to expand in and a Mississippian culture that probably finds the Great Lakes and lands to the north rather chilly, but the Quebecois have no other place to go and would find OTL Manitoba, Saskatchewan etc their obvious "manifest destiny," whereas unless the British have the foresight to deliberately pre-empt this movement by painstakingly settling farmer colonies via the difficult route though the northern passages to Hudson's Bay, the British interest locally is weak, mainly just to benefit HBC. The strength defending "Rupert Land" from some kind of Francophone expansion, probably Quebecois, would be in the company's claims being backed by the British Empire. Under those circumstances--if Quebec does have a nasty clash with Britain, they might suffer cut-off commerce and naval shelling, yet win on the continent. Or, Britain, foreseeing the outcome, brokers a deal with Quebec allowing some combination of Quebecois settlement of the land and continued HBC profits--either Francophone autonomy largely loyal to Quebec for settlers on nominally British soil of Rupert's Land, or ceding a lot of Rupert's Land to Quebec in return for a continued favored role for the HBC on Quebec's new soil.
Turning south---and east. What happens to the USA? It is true, individual Americans can still emigrate West, to settle in what is now Louisiana. But obviously, the whole identity of the USA is completely changed now. There is no longer the slightest prospect of the vast continental empire many early Americans dreamed up. If anyone has a grand Manifest Destiny now, it is Louisiana. The likelihood of any aspect of US history continuing as OTL is slim to none. Will New England attempt to industrialize as OTL? They don't have much prospect if they don't, but lacking the markets of an expanding West to buy agricultural and mined raw materials from and sell industrial and consumer goods to, can they survive on an industrial basis? Can they hope to trade, again without an expanding Western domestic market to sell overseas goods to and sell the products of to overseas customers? In the Middle Atlantic states--there is room for settler expansion for maybe a generation, and then they are in the same boat as New England. In the slave/plantation South--again, no new lands to establish new plantations in in Mississippi or Alabama, so the possible economic crisis of the plantation economy looms before it gets properly started. And OTL, a major source of capital for developing New England and other northern industry was investments of profits reaped by Southern slave-holders selling cotton from mostly the Old Southwest.
The United States will either fight Louisiana, much earlier than 1864, or it is a completely different society over there, nothing much like OTL Yankees or Dixie.
I know you mentioned the Hartford convention and Yankee secession, but why would that happen ITTL? The occasion for that movement OTL was the War of 1812, and that war was largely about conflicts between Britain in Canada and US settlers moving west. All that is pre-empted here, with Quebec more or less friendly and at any rate decoupled from Britain, and Louisiana first under the Spanish crown and then independent. The only issues left to have a War of 1812 over would be those ones that would draw Yankees into supporting the war rather than opposing it as OTL--impressment of sailors, issues of access to fishing sites, stuff like that. But without the vast backcountry to draw on, ITTL the USA is clearly weaker than OTL and getting into a war with Britain, even a Britain shorn of her base in Canada (but they still have Newfoundland/Labrador, at least until the Quebecois take them from them) is clearly a Bad Idea, impressment or not. So if anything I'd expect the New England States to cling tightly to the Union as their only protection, weak as it is.
So I'm getting the picture--the USA is a sideline in this timeline, and North America is effectively divided between French and Spanish speakers, with Anglophones being peripheral oddities. Even if a lot of Louisianiens and Quebecois wind up being descended from much the same ancestors as OTL US citizens and Canadians, they will speak French.
This brings me finally to the question of where Louisiana will go, which of course is what the whole timeline is all about.
By 1860, the USA had at least one sector--New England--that had caught up to the most industrially developed parts of Europe. And from that base a certain amount of industrialism could be found in any part of the Union whatsoever. Is either thing true of Louisiana? Is there some part of the vast Republic/Empire that has anything like New English levels of industrial development, and how machine-minded are the Louisianiens in general? Even if there is no place comparable to Lowell, Mass, of OTL, are there steam boats and mechanics and boiler factories to be found on the Mississippi as there were OTL? What about railroads?
If Louisiana fails to develop this sort of infrastructure, it might be an opportunity for the US, at least its northern half, to prosper, filling the role of industrial region much as in OTL. It would be awkward though--the Yankees could not rely on access to Louisianien resources or markets as they could OTL, while Louisiana would be vulnerable as well. Perhaps Quebec industrializes more than OTL? That partnership would be almost as bad as Louisiana/USA, but at least both sides speak the same language!
And finally, what about the West? Can Louisiana expand westward to the Pacific? (We also have Tejas loose from Mexico, perhaps it would be more natural for Tejanos to take California?)
I ask all this stuff because you've made me care!
Love the Louisiana flag by the way. It seems to me it would be kind of dark though, dark green bordering dark blue like that. Is there a way to brighten it up a bit, without losing its elegance?
-----
Edit---
What about California and the Pacific Northwest? OTL, after the Louisiana Purchase, the United States had a clear path to the Pacific Coast, and very quickly took it to establish settlement in Oregon, first via the long sea route to establish fur trading at Astoria. This brought the USA into an additional zone of potential conflict with Britain, which had its own growing fur trade establishment that became British Columbia. It seems that TTL Louisiana does not have the same sense of westward "manifest destiny" nor the seagoing mercantile cultural element of New England (Oregon settlement, even the overland part of it, OTL had a strongly Yankee element to it) and the Latin American politics suggests that sort of inertia too. So what are the chances that Louisiana will even seek an outlet on the Pacific? Will Mexico manage to hold on to California, and even expand north to the Columbia River or beyond? To what degree was British settlement of the Puget Sound area OTL driven by the need to pre-empt the Yankees, and would it therefore be deferred ITTL? What about Russia? OTL, both British and Spanish/Mexican designs on the Pacific Northwest coast were motivated in part by the desire to pre-empt the Russians based in Alaska. And the Russians did venture as far south as Fort Ross, in modern California not far north of San Francisco. Would they have a free hand to gradually work their way south ITTL? Logistics and demographics were against them OTL. The major reason they established Fort Ross was to set up a farming colony to feed their company operatives up north in Alaska. Presumably they passed Puget Sound and the Columbia/Williamette river valleys by because they were already preempted there by British and Americans, but if they could get to Vancouver Island and that region first, perhaps they would be strong enough not to dislodge. This would delay Mexican expansion northward which was partially a race to preempt them from California which they would not need to attempt now. Leaving prospects from San Francisco to the mouth of the Columbia for a later British incursion, an adventurous Yankee claim, later annexation by Russia or Mexico--or a belated Louisianien claim.
And back to the east and the Gulf of Mexico--paralleling the movement of Anglo Yankees into OTL "Old Northwest," ITTL Ohio, we had OTL the expansion into the "Old Southwest", that is Alabama, Mississippi, as well as Tennessee and Kentucky to the north, by Southern Americans. This as I mentioned above was the economic powerhouse driving the expansion of slave plantations and generating huge profits that fueled all sectors of the US economy OTL. ITTL if Southern US people are going to pursue similar opportunities they have to either emigrate to southern Louisiana and assimilate there as you envision northern US people doing in Ohio, or they will be tempted to seize territory from Louisiana outright. Assuming they are prevented from such filibustering, what impact do Southern Anglos have on southern Louisiana? Seeing the huge demographic boom the Louisianiens pull off, with that rapid population growth, it is easy to accept that the Anglos coming in at the north don't tip the cultural balance enough and that French prevails, eventually even in Ohio. What if there is a second stream of Anglos coming in though in the South?
Actually Anglos looking to make a profit as plantation owners might assimilate to French-speaking more easily than Yankee farmers. As somewhat pretentious people they probably have learned French already just for the prestige reasons, and their entourage at the plantations are likely to be locally hired (or purchased!) Louisianiens or French-trained slaves, respectively.
Last edited:
^Wow, thats a lot! Thanks!
On the War of 1812, my college US history class, at least, portrayed the war as being about Britain refusing to let the US trade with France, with impressment as a secondary matter. At any rate, I needed the US to balkanize, unfortunately-at the beginning of the TL, the US has, I think, around four million people, and Louisiana has about a quarter million. I can have this equalize over time by having the Louisianais retain high birthrates like the OTL Quebecois, and redirecting the OTL immigration of the Irish and Italians to Louisiana, but all these would take until the latter half of the 19th century to really kick in, and in the meantime, Ohio or somewhere can probably pull a Texas and join the US if they really want to. That said, if I rewrite this TL, I might just have the Constitutional Convention fail. Probably make more sense.
Oh, and while French and Spanish speakers are much more important in this TL, Louisiana does have a lot of Anglophones, as I've taken care to mention. A good many southern planters did migrate to the Mississippi Valley, and while they would eventually assimilate into the Francophone planter aristocracy, they were very important, especially importing the cotton industry from the south and establishing it in along the Lower Mississippi and Missouri. Louisiana does have some steam trains, paddlewheel boats, and factories along the Mississippi, a good many started by immigrants from the US-especially New England. As I've hinted at, the Anglophone minority in Louisiana runs a highly disproportionate amount of the economy, especially foreign trade and industry. The post Blanchot (I) adminstrations of Louisiana all essentially courted these Anglophones as a vital constituiency, and unfortunately a lot have contributed to the corruption in Louisiana's government.
Also, and I'll eventually explore this in greater detail, Ohio is going to become, essentially, something much like Louisiana's Quebec. This will be more important when the TL gets towards the modern era, but you will see Francophone politicians wringing their hands at those crazy English-Louisianians in Ohio and their fringe separtist groups (the irony...
)
Quebec I haven't gone into much detail about, obviously. Since you mentioned it, Rupert's Land was the name for the Hudson's Bay Company possessions in North America. My idea was that eventually (and probably way before 1864), the British and Quebecois would get into some minor dust-ups about Rupert's Land, which would end with Britain essentially selling it to Quebec. I'll go into it if I ever flesh out TTL Quebec's political history.
Oh, and Acadia and Quebec were administered and settled separately by the French, and had separate French dialects (with Acadia's being much more divergent from standard French than Quebec's). Its my understanding that today, there are separate Quebecois and Acadien identities in Canada. Obviously, Quebec and Acadia would be very closely allied and cooperate on most matters...bit like the US and Canada, actually.
And the flag...thanks, I haven't considered myself a real graphics designer. Do you think changing the shade of green to a lighter one would be sufficient? Or should I go with some other color, like light yellow (for that tall, browned prarie grass by the Mississippi...)
Again, thanks for the constructive criticism!
On the War of 1812, my college US history class, at least, portrayed the war as being about Britain refusing to let the US trade with France, with impressment as a secondary matter. At any rate, I needed the US to balkanize, unfortunately-at the beginning of the TL, the US has, I think, around four million people, and Louisiana has about a quarter million. I can have this equalize over time by having the Louisianais retain high birthrates like the OTL Quebecois, and redirecting the OTL immigration of the Irish and Italians to Louisiana, but all these would take until the latter half of the 19th century to really kick in, and in the meantime, Ohio or somewhere can probably pull a Texas and join the US if they really want to. That said, if I rewrite this TL, I might just have the Constitutional Convention fail. Probably make more sense.
Oh, and while French and Spanish speakers are much more important in this TL, Louisiana does have a lot of Anglophones, as I've taken care to mention. A good many southern planters did migrate to the Mississippi Valley, and while they would eventually assimilate into the Francophone planter aristocracy, they were very important, especially importing the cotton industry from the south and establishing it in along the Lower Mississippi and Missouri. Louisiana does have some steam trains, paddlewheel boats, and factories along the Mississippi, a good many started by immigrants from the US-especially New England. As I've hinted at, the Anglophone minority in Louisiana runs a highly disproportionate amount of the economy, especially foreign trade and industry. The post Blanchot (I) adminstrations of Louisiana all essentially courted these Anglophones as a vital constituiency, and unfortunately a lot have contributed to the corruption in Louisiana's government.
Also, and I'll eventually explore this in greater detail, Ohio is going to become, essentially, something much like Louisiana's Quebec. This will be more important when the TL gets towards the modern era, but you will see Francophone politicians wringing their hands at those crazy English-Louisianians in Ohio and their fringe separtist groups (the irony...
)Quebec I haven't gone into much detail about, obviously. Since you mentioned it, Rupert's Land was the name for the Hudson's Bay Company possessions in North America. My idea was that eventually (and probably way before 1864), the British and Quebecois would get into some minor dust-ups about Rupert's Land, which would end with Britain essentially selling it to Quebec. I'll go into it if I ever flesh out TTL Quebec's political history.
Oh, and Acadia and Quebec were administered and settled separately by the French, and had separate French dialects (with Acadia's being much more divergent from standard French than Quebec's). Its my understanding that today, there are separate Quebecois and Acadien identities in Canada. Obviously, Quebec and Acadia would be very closely allied and cooperate on most matters...bit like the US and Canada, actually
.And the flag...thanks, I haven't considered myself a real graphics designer. Do you think changing the shade of green to a lighter one would be sufficient? Or should I go with some other color, like light yellow (for that tall, browned prarie grass by the Mississippi...)
Again, thanks for the constructive criticism!
Its far from Louisiana and or Texas to California.
And what about the Spanish Province of New Mexico. It would not have been easy going threw them. Around them maybe. During US Mexican war New Mexico was really the only part of the new conquered territories that revolted against the US.
Large map of Louisiana territory 1760 - http://www.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1760b6.jpg
Found a 1783 map of North America. Seems Louisiana territory got smaller if you compare it to the above map. And it seems Quebec province was larger back then. Included much of the US Midwest.
Large map - http://www.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1783u5.jpg
Large US Map showing Westward expansion East of the Mississippi river from 1772-1789 - http://www.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1895t8.jpg
Spanish Territory in North America in 1802. - http://www.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1802a7.jpg On the top right you can see the town of New Madrid which still exists.
Last edited:
Remember, the Seven Years War had a different settlement than OTL. In reality, the French colony of Louisiana (which had essentially included the entire valley of the Mississippi and all its tributaries, plus peripheral places like Alabama) was essentially split in half after the war-everything east of the Mississippi went to Britain, and then to the US after the Revolution. Everything west of Mississippi went to Spain, which ran it for about forty years before giving it back to France, who then sold it to Thomas Jefferson. In this TL, all of French North America below the Great Lakes was ceded to Spain, and stayed together as the (Spanish) colony of Louisiana (or Luisiana).
Those maps were a great find though, Metro-interesting to see what North America looked like back then! I'll see if I can use them.
Those maps were a great find though, Metro-interesting to see what North America looked like back then! I'll see if I can use them.
I figure the real burning issue of the War of 1812 OTL was Americans expanding into the Old Northwest. They had issues with how slowly the British had withdrawn from that territory (which they had nominally ceded at the Treaty of Paris--but then, the Americans hardly kept scrupulously to all the Treaty provisions either, notably the ones about treating Loyalists fairly and giving them fair compensation, and in general treating British contractual claims fairly in American courts--this was in turn an issue which the Constitution eventually addressed). More seriously and currently, they hated the way the British now cultivated good relations with Native peoples as a way of throwing up obstacles to American settlers--just as they had done during the Revolutionary War and the French had done against Britain during the Seven Years War (French and Indian War, as Americans called it!) The maritime issues were a big deal too, but you'd think if they were the real main ones that the War-Hawks would have been New Englanders, rather than Western settlers. As it was, New England was so unmoved by the alleged common cause they shared with the Hawks that they were often both "Peace-Doves" and even secessionist.
I don't think you necessarily have to go even further toward dismantling the USA; with the Northwest Territories off the table and firmly in Spanish (or friendly Quebecois) hands, the dreams of empire have little basis short of conquest. And demographics.
Clearly if there had been even more French immigration before 1760, and presumably more Spanish settlement of Tejas and Florida to keep pace, then US demographics would not loom so threateningly in 1800. I forget the merits of the arguments back and forth as to why too much French and Spanish (or rather, French and Spanish patronized) settlement would have been crazy. If Britain, supplemented by approved Germans and other immigrants, could set the basis for the US millions, why couldn't France or Spain? Spain had other places to route Europeans to of course, but for France Louisiana/Quebec/Acadia was the main show, except for those profitable sugar islands of course.
Well I sure don't want you to have to go back now. The Acadian independence explanation makes sense. Heck, for quite some time Newfoundland was a Dominion (or something, not up on the proper terminology of British dependencies) separate from Canada--they merged in the 1930s as an economy measure due to the Depression. I think we see eye to eye on the relatively easy absorption of Southern USA planters into southern Louisianien society.
The only big floating question marks are 1) what restrains hot-headed Americans from grabbing the Old Northwest (and Old Southwest while they are at it)? For one thing, they never got that territory ceded to them at ITTL Treaty of Paris. For another, Spain held it, then the Louisianiens never expressed interest in joining the USA--having established that on the whole Americans preferred to keep the Catholic Quebecois at arm's length, it makes sense that they wouldn't swoop in to claim the same sort of problem against the Louisianiens' will.
I hadn't picked up on the role that Anglos play in making the politics of Louisiana so Latin-American, but since the British played a similar role in OTL Latin America, that makes some sense.
So, there aren't that many Anglo-Americans (there are in 1800 but the major stream of immigrants would flow up the Saint-Laurent or down to New Orleans, to settle ultimately in northern or southern Louisiana); they have opportunity as individuals to move to Louisiana so they don't seek the trouble of conquest; their own have undue influence there and so they don't want to rock the boat too much as they are rather high up on it in many cases.
If none of that seems satisfactory, go ahead and have the Union fail, it's not like they are losing a continental empire or anything!
2) is this version of North America simply far less industrialized than OTL altogether, or
a) does Louisiana and/or Quebec have industrial centers comparable in intensity and magnitude to OTL New England and the eventual status of the Middle Atlantic and Midwest states? If so, where are they? I suppose New Orleans might be a candidate for the nucleus, as the desired capital and the entrepot of much trade. Montreal might have been even more of a big apple--the big maple, I guess--if not eclipsed as OTL by New York and other US cities. You've mentioned Ohio but it is disturbingly Anglo--shades of option b below--I'd like to see at least some Francophone industrialism independent of the Anglos.
Eventually--not right away to be sure--Chicaguo and the Lacs Grandes region in general could become a late-blooming industrial zone, one that merges Louisianien, Quebecois, and US Anglo culture more than Ohio
or
b) does New England and eventually the US Middle States find a role much as OTL in specializing in industry, and managing to trade with the nominally foreign territories much as they did OTL?
We certainly know that these places had the geographic potential (whereas I am not sure that either the New Orleans area or Montreal have it). And it would explain why the USA, especially if it does remain united, doesn't attack their major trade partners.
Again the Ohioans might as I think you said also take a leading role, just as OTL geographically though not politically.
And I do think that eventually anyway, the OTL Midwest, particularly the more western parts of it, southwest of the Great Lakes between the Mesabi range and the transport access of the lakes and the Great Plains, will bloom into heavy industry specifically on Louisianien terms. In fact the whole Midwest could eventually be much as OTL, with a cultural spectrum ranging from heavily Anglo in the east to integrated Lousianien in the west.
3) California and the West--I've asked my questions of you already, now to address Metro:
Yep, the West coast is an awful long way from New York, and even from Saint-Louis. Still that didn't stop Jefferson from sending Lewis and Clark all the way to Oregon, or Astor from founding Astoria there. Anglo-Americans are typically rather grabby when it comes to land after all!
ITTL, if the Louisianiens do not take advantage of their somewhat closer proximity to extend the definition of "Louisiana" to reach at least one point on the Pacific, that demonstrates that they are at any rate not as aggressively grasping as OTL Anglos!
I wasn't thinking they'd start with California, but rather as OTL United States, worm their way to the coast along the Colombia river. It is however true that OTL, American claims on Oregon were strengthened by Yankee ships that sailed around the Horn. Technically New Orleans is closer, being farther south and thus closer to the Horn, but I don't have the impression they are anything like the seafarers New Englanders were. And the New Englanders ITTL haven't got the geographic reach on the continent they did in the early 19th Century OTL to give British negotiators pause. I guess US access to the Pacific via Oregon OTL was actually a combined land/sea operation, and ITTL no one has both.
That leaves it, as I rather sadly speculated, to be fought over by the Spanish/Mexicans, British, and possibly Russians.
If I can't have Francophone Louisianiens or Quebecois claiming the Columbia mouth or Puget Sound overland, I guess my personal preference for fun and mixing things up would be to have the Russians double down on their investment in America and secure at least what is OTL British Columbia, holding the whole coast from Vancouver Island to--well, to Siberia in Asia.
From there, I don't see what would stop them working south until they came to strong Spanish/Mexican settlements, which would be around San Francisco Bay or maybe somewhat north of there--probably no farther north than OTL northern California border and perhaps considerably farther south than that.
The Russians OTL enjoyed some success with winning better relations with Native peoples than was typical of the Anglo powers; this is one reason they could even contemplate holding on to Fort Ross with the paltry handful of Russians they had available--they got along well with the coastal natives, whereas the Spanish and Mexicans were trying to herd them into the missions. That is very likely merely a function of their being so few in numbers of course; certainly this was a pattern in America, that whoever had less European numbers on hand tended to secure alliances with Natives. As I pointed out above, first the French did this against Britain and then Britain did it against the USA.
With all the talk in this thread and the original of whether European governments might inflate their colonies by sending political undesirables to America, it is amusing to consider that this is exactly the kind of thing the Tsars did, sending dissidents to Siberia. If they extend that practice, Russian America might be a very politically--interesting--place.
If the Francophone republics never reach the Pacific Coast in their own right, I can see them cultivating good relations with Russian America instead, and immigrating there. Not sure if we need to worry about sectarian religious politics by the middle of the 19th Century, at least not in a Russian-held territory where the governors are used to keeping a lid on potential fires like dissident Russians and native peoples who doubtless will only put up with so much religious hectoring. The Francophone Catholics from the east might be a welcome stabilizing influence by contrast!
If California stays securely inside Mexico, it would doubtless eventually transform Mexican society and its historical trajectory. Another possibility would be for it to split off and go its own way. Another would be for Britain to try to make up for being frustrated in the Puget Sound area by carving it off as a dominion of her own. They might try and fail, and in the course of doing so open up California to more settlement by Louisianiens, again as a relatively friendly stabilizing influence that deter others from their adventurism. Tejas might also get involved in the geopolitics of the Southwest.
I don't think you necessarily have to go even further toward dismantling the USA; with the Northwest Territories off the table and firmly in Spanish (or friendly Quebecois) hands, the dreams of empire have little basis short of conquest. And demographics.
Clearly if there had been even more French immigration before 1760, and presumably more Spanish settlement of Tejas and Florida to keep pace, then US demographics would not loom so threateningly in 1800. I forget the merits of the arguments back and forth as to why too much French and Spanish (or rather, French and Spanish patronized) settlement would have been crazy. If Britain, supplemented by approved Germans and other immigrants, could set the basis for the US millions, why couldn't France or Spain? Spain had other places to route Europeans to of course, but for France Louisiana/Quebec/Acadia was the main show, except for those profitable sugar islands of course.
Well I sure don't want you to have to go back now. The Acadian independence explanation makes sense. Heck, for quite some time Newfoundland was a Dominion (or something, not up on the proper terminology of British dependencies) separate from Canada--they merged in the 1930s as an economy measure due to the Depression. I think we see eye to eye on the relatively easy absorption of Southern USA planters into southern Louisianien society.
The only big floating question marks are 1) what restrains hot-headed Americans from grabbing the Old Northwest (and Old Southwest while they are at it)? For one thing, they never got that territory ceded to them at ITTL Treaty of Paris. For another, Spain held it, then the Louisianiens never expressed interest in joining the USA--having established that on the whole Americans preferred to keep the Catholic Quebecois at arm's length, it makes sense that they wouldn't swoop in to claim the same sort of problem against the Louisianiens' will.
I hadn't picked up on the role that Anglos play in making the politics of Louisiana so Latin-American, but since the British played a similar role in OTL Latin America, that makes some sense.
So, there aren't that many Anglo-Americans (there are in 1800 but the major stream of immigrants would flow up the Saint-Laurent or down to New Orleans, to settle ultimately in northern or southern Louisiana); they have opportunity as individuals to move to Louisiana so they don't seek the trouble of conquest; their own have undue influence there and so they don't want to rock the boat too much as they are rather high up on it in many cases.
If none of that seems satisfactory, go ahead and have the Union fail, it's not like they are losing a continental empire or anything!
2) is this version of North America simply far less industrialized than OTL altogether, or
a) does Louisiana and/or Quebec have industrial centers comparable in intensity and magnitude to OTL New England and the eventual status of the Middle Atlantic and Midwest states? If so, where are they? I suppose New Orleans might be a candidate for the nucleus, as the desired capital and the entrepot of much trade. Montreal might have been even more of a big apple--the big maple, I guess--if not eclipsed as OTL by New York and other US cities. You've mentioned Ohio but it is disturbingly Anglo--shades of option b below--I'd like to see at least some Francophone industrialism independent of the Anglos.
Eventually--not right away to be sure--Chicaguo and the Lacs Grandes region in general could become a late-blooming industrial zone, one that merges Louisianien, Quebecois, and US Anglo culture more than Ohio
or
b) does New England and eventually the US Middle States find a role much as OTL in specializing in industry, and managing to trade with the nominally foreign territories much as they did OTL?
We certainly know that these places had the geographic potential (whereas I am not sure that either the New Orleans area or Montreal have it). And it would explain why the USA, especially if it does remain united, doesn't attack their major trade partners.
Again the Ohioans might as I think you said also take a leading role, just as OTL geographically though not politically.
And I do think that eventually anyway, the OTL Midwest, particularly the more western parts of it, southwest of the Great Lakes between the Mesabi range and the transport access of the lakes and the Great Plains, will bloom into heavy industry specifically on Louisianien terms. In fact the whole Midwest could eventually be much as OTL, with a cultural spectrum ranging from heavily Anglo in the east to integrated Lousianien in the west.
3) California and the West--I've asked my questions of you already, now to address Metro:
Yep, the West coast is an awful long way from New York, and even from Saint-Louis. Still that didn't stop Jefferson from sending Lewis and Clark all the way to Oregon, or Astor from founding Astoria there. Anglo-Americans are typically rather grabby when it comes to land after all!
ITTL, if the Louisianiens do not take advantage of their somewhat closer proximity to extend the definition of "Louisiana" to reach at least one point on the Pacific, that demonstrates that they are at any rate not as aggressively grasping as OTL Anglos!
I wasn't thinking they'd start with California, but rather as OTL United States, worm their way to the coast along the Colombia river. It is however true that OTL, American claims on Oregon were strengthened by Yankee ships that sailed around the Horn. Technically New Orleans is closer, being farther south and thus closer to the Horn, but I don't have the impression they are anything like the seafarers New Englanders were. And the New Englanders ITTL haven't got the geographic reach on the continent they did in the early 19th Century OTL to give British negotiators pause. I guess US access to the Pacific via Oregon OTL was actually a combined land/sea operation, and ITTL no one has both.
That leaves it, as I rather sadly speculated, to be fought over by the Spanish/Mexicans, British, and possibly Russians.
If I can't have Francophone Louisianiens or Quebecois claiming the Columbia mouth or Puget Sound overland, I guess my personal preference for fun and mixing things up would be to have the Russians double down on their investment in America and secure at least what is OTL British Columbia, holding the whole coast from Vancouver Island to--well, to Siberia in Asia.
From there, I don't see what would stop them working south until they came to strong Spanish/Mexican settlements, which would be around San Francisco Bay or maybe somewhat north of there--probably no farther north than OTL northern California border and perhaps considerably farther south than that.
The Russians OTL enjoyed some success with winning better relations with Native peoples than was typical of the Anglo powers; this is one reason they could even contemplate holding on to Fort Ross with the paltry handful of Russians they had available--they got along well with the coastal natives, whereas the Spanish and Mexicans were trying to herd them into the missions. That is very likely merely a function of their being so few in numbers of course; certainly this was a pattern in America, that whoever had less European numbers on hand tended to secure alliances with Natives. As I pointed out above, first the French did this against Britain and then Britain did it against the USA.
With all the talk in this thread and the original of whether European governments might inflate their colonies by sending political undesirables to America, it is amusing to consider that this is exactly the kind of thing the Tsars did, sending dissidents to Siberia. If they extend that practice, Russian America might be a very politically--interesting--place.
If the Francophone republics never reach the Pacific Coast in their own right, I can see them cultivating good relations with Russian America instead, and immigrating there. Not sure if we need to worry about sectarian religious politics by the middle of the 19th Century, at least not in a Russian-held territory where the governors are used to keeping a lid on potential fires like dissident Russians and native peoples who doubtless will only put up with so much religious hectoring. The Francophone Catholics from the east might be a welcome stabilizing influence by contrast!
If California stays securely inside Mexico, it would doubtless eventually transform Mexican society and its historical trajectory. Another possibility would be for it to split off and go its own way. Another would be for Britain to try to make up for being frustrated in the Puget Sound area by carving it off as a dominion of her own. They might try and fail, and in the course of doing so open up California to more settlement by Louisianiens, again as a relatively friendly stabilizing influence that deter others from their adventurism. Tejas might also get involved in the geopolitics of the Southwest.
It's right here at post 79, and aside from it being so dark I think it's gorgeous.
And lightening it might ruin it; that shade of royal blue is just right from my years of Catholic school; the dark green is so richly symbolic of the American wilderness too. I don't want to mess with it!
I hope this timeline comes alive again someday.
