*I KNOW IT'S AUSTRALIA NOT AUSTRIA, I'M SORRY* Also, what other 'what if' moments do you think could have changed world history had they gone differently?
I would imagine that the existence of a large French speaking state in North America would mean several large revolts in Quebec along with a much stronger succession movement than in our timeline
@@TheIgorGruzdev In what sense? America would have nowhere near the cultural influence in this scenario. If anything I could see Louisiana becoming more like Argentina. A mix of mostly French, Southern European, black and indigenous influence.
France had an early policy of french immigrants living on the edges of the territory and leaving the indigenous peoples alone on the interior. I think its possible that this would have had a bigger impact than we expect.
The US would have invaded Louisiana. And swallowed it up. It was a very scarcely populated territory and France did not have the means the defend it. The main difference would be that France and the US would have had a much more tense relationship during the XIXth century and France would have probably never gifted the Statue of Liberty to the US. So the US would lose one of their main symbols
I don't think that Louisiana could have survived in the way it was structured. For Louisiana to live it would need a radical change in its political structure and would desperatly need A LOT more local control, but because of how large and unpopulated it is, the french would have to rely on the natives tribes to defend it, so most of louisiana would actually be a web of alliances and protectorates, with only a few real french controlled and populated holdouts based in strategically centered places such as St Louis, Des moines or Pierre. I believe that if Louisiana remained a french possession, it's identity would be all about pretecting themselves from the americans and a being wall to american expansion into mostly native lands with the exeption of the large french cities, all placed on the Misissispi river for easier access to the outside world. There also would definetly be skirmishes between the american migrants going east and the french/ natives defending their lands. Also as a result of france protecting and giving autonomy to its native tribes in louisiana to defend itself, France would undirectly or directly if desired, be in the postition of the defendor of native rights in the americas and any trail of tears like genocide would make yourself an enemy for life with France and its allies, so unless they want problem with france most nations would be more leanient with it's tribes. Damn I wrote more than I tought lol, great video though, you should go more in depth in explaining your scenarios I would love that
Except if French Lousiana decides to emulate the US, organizes itself as another land of the free and the brave, and competes with the US to attract immigration of any religion. They succeed, grow strong to deter any attempt of invasion from US of British North America, start their own expansion westwards.
@@dikranlutufyan1001 I can see that happen but I don't think they would conquer new territories by force to expand, at least not on a national level but maybe local tribes expand therefore as a whole louisiana expands. But I could see natives tribes joining Louisiana in order have protection from the other powers that are expanding in the area like mexico or britain. Which would mean mexico and britain get the claims they had IRL like british columbia and caifornia but everything in between is louisiana
@@dikranlutufyan1001 But I can definetly see migration being highly encouraged since the land is so sparse it would be a necessity. tought I'm not sure if the louisiana gouvernement would promote and emulate the US, I think the louisiana coulture would be all about freedom and a place to escape. I would compare it to autralia more than the USA
Fun discussion. Please remember that France still "owns" part of North America, albeit a tiny part: The overseas collectivity of "Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon."
I’m from Louisiana and it’s interesting when you meet somebody from Missouri or Wisconsin with a common Louisiana last name. It’s like technically we’re of the same heritage but we are nothing alike
@@shazanali692 I know it's a lot of German/Polish/Russian type names up there and obviously we all speak English now, but I've met people up there named like Maringouin or Arceneaux, and it's like, ok there's only one place that name comes from, why did you come here and why didn't you come home ? Our lost snow frog cousins
@@noworriesbehappymr.x7681as someone who is also from Louisiana, I haven’t heard somebody speak French here literally ever lol but I myself do personally speak it
@@General.Knowledge what do you think would happen if Arizona and Sonora became one state under the US? What stats would the combined states be? What would be gained and what would be lost? Stuff like that.
@Patrick Hudson Napoleon was fighting and losing at the time of the Louisiana purchase. That's what sparked louisiana purchase and then he would later go on the russia in winter and completely demolishes army so
@@thewonderingbuddhist6123 He was not losing in 1803 at the time of the purchase lol, he wasn't even emperor yet at this point the Napoleonic Wars still had 12 years to go Still he was pretty damn busy so any hypothetical Franco-American war would have likely taken place after peace in Europe
I like how in a French video on the same subject the video title it's "what if Napoleon hadn't sold Lousiana?" and here it's from the opposite perspective
@Patrick Hudson not white? Majority was Berberic. Berbers are the native people of North Africa. The Vandalic Germanic Kingdom in North Africa was assimilated with the Berbers even before the Arab Invasion. Gadaafi in fact was not Arab he was Berberic only maybe coast of Lybia (Cyrenaica), Tunesian Coast maybe would be majority White cause of the Greeks settlement. But North Africa would be more Christian i think like Egyptian Coptic.
Most probably Coptic in Egypt and Catholic in the Magreb. I don't believe physical appearence is an issue in this respect. The Arabs, like the Romans, had a huge cultural impact in the territories they conquered, but not so much from a biological point of view. In both cases, they were usually a very minoritarian ruling elite.
@@incognitoman3656 would be better then now White Countries are better generally to live than non white however Gaddafi‘s Lybia was great Economy and was comparable with Spain or Greece. But it was destroyed by French, American interess
The only problem I can think of with these hypothetical scenarios is considering the land itself. For instance, Mexico would no more be a superpower if it kept all its territory than it is in reality, since an overwhelming majority of what it's keeping is desert. One of the reasons the US was so successful was the varied lands they claimed, which allowed greater amounts of farmland, and easier industrialization, as well as a massive amount of port cities. Louisiana would have to expand greatly to become a viable nation, especially if its population remained low and Mexico wouldn't have any more ports or arable land than it does now.
While I agree with your overall premise, aka I don't think Mexico would have become a superpower either, I do think Mexico would become more powerful overall. Of course, we don't know about how it might have gone, but if Mexico had kept what became Texas and California, then they would have a lot of very important land/future regions under their control.
I could actually see it splitting, just not as much as Latin America did. The distance between the two main cities that existed at the time, St. Louis and New Orleans, is big even by modern standards. That's a good thousand miles. St. Louis would have more commerce and interaction with the US territories on the east side of the river while New Orleans would have more trade with Mexico. That would lead the cultures to diverge. At minimum, at least part of it would get taken by the US. Mexico would probably be bigger than it is now. It would depend on how an independent Louisiana affected US immigration to Texas. Without that influx, I don't think Texas would have revolted, at least not successfully. California, with it's central valley and ports would probably become independent from Mexico, possibly taking Baja with it.
It's entirely possible that Louisiana remaining a separate French colony would eventually result in Federalism similar to what happened in Canada, with 3 (or maybe 5 if the natives formed their own) independent provinces united into one independent country.
France always had one single problem with its colonies: no settlers. France was so fertile it could almost always feed its whole very large population (3rd after China and India then). The settlers were forced to go there; mostly beggars and prostitutes picked up in the streets and put on a boat the week after. So the population was very low and could not defend itself.
A little similar to the Portuguese. They arrived to a bunch of places and then had no one to leave there to actually establish colonies. I think it's one of the reasons that contributed to their 'Outpost' Empire model. All they could afford (population-wise) was a small garrison and some traders.
@@jeannesandner1918 Je ne parlais pas du tout de notre époque mais du passé où avec 25M d'habitants la France était de très loin le pays le plus peuplé grâce à son sol très fertile.
It's interesting that the French were so lenient with the American Natives compared to other colonial powers, when in contrast they were pretty rough on some of their other colonies, like in French Indochina. I suppose back in the days of slow communication, how a country acted once settled in a faraway place heavily depended on who was leading the mission, and not so much on a global policy.
A Cambodian friend told me that as soon as they arrived in Indochina, the French prevented in-extremis the dismemberment of Cambodia by Vietnam and Thailand. So it is partly thanks to them that the country still exists.
@@albevanhanoy Before the wars of independence, the French seem in general to have behaved quite well towards the natives in their colonies, such as in America where marriages with Amerindians were frequent, in India or even in some parts of Africa where slavery was abolished by them. On the other hand, there is the case of Algeria, where the natives received as an affront, and rightly so, the unequal and discriminatory "Crémieux decree", in 1889, which granted French nationality to Algerian Jews but not to Muslims. I think that this partly explains the resentment that persists today towards them... However, the Spanish enslaved some Native Americans, before The Valladolid debate around 1550, and they were not much better treated afterwards. During his naval tour of the world, Jean-François de La Pérouse describes being horrified by the way the Amerindians were treated in Chile in 1785. The English and later the US (French and Indian War, Pontiac's War etc.) , almost totally exterminated them. The French, on the other hand, have committed neither one nor the other towards Amerindians.
@pdwhudson1 If you read Article 1 of the «Code Noir», decree passed by King Louis XIV of France in 1685 defining the conditions of slavery in the French colonial empire, you will be very surprised to find out who had a certain monopoly of the slave trade in the French colonies... you can do the same research concerning the United States.
The French sold Louisiana after their army was decimated in Haiti, to Yellow Fever and Malaria, as well as the Haitians. Napoleon had plans for New Orleans that were disrupted by that loss.
The short answer is, If Napoleon decided not to sell the Louisiana territory, the US would have likely invaded it anyway. Considering he had much greater ambitions in Europe at the time. He realized keeping it was not possible.
Napoleon had planned that after defeating the rebellion in St Domingue (Haiti) he would create an army of battle experienced black/colored soldiers from the colony and use them as a major part of his military force in a campaign to carve out a North American Empire. The colony (St Domingue/Haiti) would've served as a naval and land base and a source of funding and supplies and colonists. He had already formed an alliance with and had 20,000+ armed Native Americans from the French Territory on standby. His plan was to seize a Gulf port from the US, conquer and colonize Louisiana Territory and expand it westwards to the Pacific using his black, Native American and French armies (and possibly his Legion St Georges aka Black Legion - Europe's first all black regiment made up of free blacks from French American colonies and maybe his Polish Legions). However all those plans fell apart with the devastating loss to the Haitian Revolutionaries and thus the loss of his black army, naval and land base, and supply and funding source, causing him to abandon his dreams of a vast American Empire and sell Louisiana at a bargain price. Interesting to imagine black Generals and soldiers cutting a swath across North America
Top notch flag work. I just added a goof on the IMDb about a TV historical documentary where a fully professional and accredited historian talked about how in 1745 Bonnie Prince Charlie might have been helped by Louis XV, but illustrated it with a Tricolour. Not to be invented until 44 years later (and also not a thing Louis would want to be associated with!) Your use of flags is perfection.
Texas and Deseret probably would not have developed if Louisiana was not sold to the US. Texas' independence was based upon early migration in the 1820's to 1840's from the East, especially Tennessee. Mormon migration from the East happened a little later, in the mid century. Both would have had to cross the new French nation. This would have been less likely because of the new nation protecting its borders. Large streams of people would not have taken the risk to get through to their prospective destinations. I think Mexico would have been more likely to have retained these territories for some time. Of course Great Britain might have made a play for territory or the US might have eventually started flexing its military muscle and just taken over Louisiana by force.
Well the Mormons initially settled in Missouri before the army kicked them out. It is likely they would just settled in French Louisiana. Unless the French kick them out. As for taxes a lot of European immigration occurred as well primarily from the German speaking countries. It's possible taxes would have been created from this but I don't know.
The US would have expanded northward into British Canada then onwards to Alaska (eventually) but Mexico would maintain California and I believe New France (Louisiana) would have claimed Oregon Territory to have a port in the Pacific -- sandwiched between USA in Columbia & Alaska and Mexico in California
0:55 A couple of irrelevant pauses when Spain controlled Lousiana??? Spain hold it arround 1/3 of the time. Lousiana reached its biggest developement under Spanish rule. And actually Lousiana passed almost directly from Spanish to US hands without French never actually ruling it in between, since Napoleon made Spanish kings to gift it to him already with the plan on mind of selling it and make some money for his wars, so it was sold to the US assap after he (only de-jure) obtained it.
I do agree with your comment that in this video Spanish rule over North America is completely minimised and the hypothesis as exposed is not realistic at all. In my opinion, most probably US Consolidation would have not happened as it did, and 60 year later the Confederation could have won the later civil war over the Union. For sure Mexico would become independent from Spain & most probably a much richer country today. Cuba and Puerto Rico could still be part of Spain.
It's most likely it ends up as US territory anyway by buying it off someone else (i.e. Spain/UK/other) or France itself or conquered since manifest destiny was running rampant at those times
I actually think about how this scenario can go on a lot. I think ANY independent Louisiana though would be vulnerable to losing the Great Plains to America, if the USA still exists. Being the USA's ONLY western neighbor during a period of expansionism would be a death sentence if it's not backed by France. If it's population is high enough and truly unwilling to join the USA it might be able to avoid annexation (France could threaten intervention) but the loss of it's vast lesser populated territories would be a huge probability.
Most folks here commit a fallacy. You all suppose that the territory would not have been settled by French people. But if Napoleon would not have sold it the history would probably have been different.
I mean I know that but the problem with starting this timeline off in 1801 is there's not much time for the population to grow before American starts seeking expansion. A better divergence would be La Salle finding the area where New Orleans would be built in the 1680's. Additional time for the region to be developed = more population. More population = less likely to get annexed by the U.S.
likely cases : - Britain takes the north half after napoleonic wars (if not all), now Canada goes all the way south to the Oregon California border in the west - Lousiana is the one to take or merge with Texas and expand west to California fueled by the gold rush - The french mexican empire works with support/logistics from Louisiana and forms a big french alliance or state -Its likely that the US would have tryed a de facto ocupation of the north of Louisiana that was mostly unocupied/unguarded by the french like Brazil expanded west through the Amazon - US would expand into the Caribean instead
If Russia managed to hold on to it until the Russian Civil War, it would’ve become a refuge for the whites similar to how Taiwan is to China. All the royals and aristocrats and white supporters would flee to Alaska, and become an ally of the US during the Cold War.
I really don't think anything would happen besides the US getting involved in the Napoleonic wars (unlikely) or the US invading after Louisiana gets independence like Mexico. Louisiana had no population other than native tribes and New Orleans, so they wouldn't be able to really stop American settlers. What im imagining is the whole Texas, Mexico, US thing but Louisiana gets totally annexed.
“Not all the territory was effectively rules and administered by the French, but they claimed it, and nobody else did.” Native Americans: Am I a joke to you?
Native American have a ranging area not a territorial area. They have a nomadic concept of territories. They don't believe that they Chief have to right to assign territorial controls of a certain piece of land with all the right and power that that entail. The French claimed the right to assign economical rights to the area and sometime it is actually effective in defending that claim.
Some very important things also to consider: WARS. First, the Amereican Civil War was a conflict long brought on by admission of slave states vs. free states in expansion out west, so that would have either prevented or delayed the war, and all of the ramifications it affected. Second, the Mexican-American War would probaably not have happened, but maybe an American-Louisiana/France War instead for similar reasons. Third, the Spanish-American War was actually extensively fought in and for the Pacific, so that would have been a differenct, especially considering its future territorial dominance (i.e. Hawaii, Guam, etc). Fourth, Without Pacific states, the US would have probably not had the initiative and need to protect/instigate Panama's war of independence and the development/control of the Panama Canal. Fifth, many of these factors would have not made the US so dominant of an economy and power to have been involved to help determine the end of World War 1. Sixth, Hawaii may have remained an independent country, so, without Hawaii, no Pearl Harbor, thus no (or at least much later) US World War 2 involvement, meaning that war could have either ended with Nazi and/or Soviet dominance in most of Europe. Seventh, US probably would have not ended up being offered Alaska for purchase, with a lot of ramifications there, with Alaska either remaining Russian which affects the Cold War, or a Czarist/Whites stronghold after the Russian revolution, or being taken over by Britain or Imperial Japan in some conflict (maybe most likely the latter two). Eigth, US maybe would not have the economy to become a world power effecting so many things, i.e. the Cold War, etc. Ninth, and maybe most important to discuss, the Napoleanic Wars: after his defeat, what would have happened to the region? Would it had been ceded/divided to the US or Britain or Spain? Would Napolean's return been there instead, where he could have established a French Empire in absentia? Actually, considering how France has somehow kept most of its former colonies and converting them into "just more parts of France" and not lost them like the British, it is not such a wild thing to think the region could have even just become "part of France" to this day, with France being maybe the current Superpower even.
I just comment to note a recurrent mistake in your videos : when you talk about the "fleur de lys/lis", the s is not supposed to be silent. It is an exception because usually in french, the s in the end of a word is silent. But here, it's not the case. (I'm a french native speaker btw)
Actually american victory in the revolution is consideret to be by help of spain and france, considering the efact that british likely gained a lot of expirience in the napoleonic wars it is not unreasonable to think of the americans going back to a colony
Read about the Oregon Treaty (aka Treaty of 1818) between the US and the UK if you want the full answer to your question, but that's basically when they agreed that the 49th parallel would form the boundary between US and British territory in the western half of North America. The very northernmost parts of the original Louisiana purchase lie north of that line.
I had relatives live in what is now the state of Iowa in the late 1700s to early 1800’s, there were no French towns or French troops it was wide open wild space. Just like there small boats crashed on the Iowa side of the Mississippi River, in a major wind/rain storm. They were sorta lost and confused by the storm. There are a lot of rivers and streams that flow in to the Mississippi River. Some were names and mapped and some were not. There was only one know French town that what is located in the boot of the state of Missouri. There is a famous lead mine (the worlds largest) there and the French did not want it to fall in to the hands of the English. At the time lead balls where used as gun ammunition.
I think it is necessary to note that the French Overseas Territory of St. Pierre and Miquelon is still a French territory. France's prescense is more like it's "hanging on a thread", so to say.
A very strong thread. France is in no danger of Canada trying to take it by force. lol
Год назад+3
Vasconcelos would have loved this scenario, he used to call Napoleon an imbecile for selling Louisiana to the anglos. For him the purchase of Louisiana was one of the main reasons why the continent ended being dominated by anglos instead of hispanics.
A little note, the wording at 0:20 makes it sounds like the city of New Orleans has 4.6 million people. The entire state of Louisiana has 4.6 million people but the city of New Orleans has 380,000. Otherwise, great video!
This is a massive domino in our historic timeline. One could pose all kinds of hypothetical questions - major and trivial - based on it. Could Japan have bought Alaska instead of the U.S.? Or could Imperial Russia have swallowed the West Coast? Would a smaller U.S. still get involved in the two world wars? Would the Clampetts and Walshes still have moved to Beverly Hills?
If Louisiana will remain French, the US would have two options - attack Louisiana or gain new territories elsewhere. As long as France was their ally, it is more likely that they will expand to the north. France will support them against the British and US will add parts of Canada as their states, while Louisiana will gain French speaking parts of Canada. US will expand until New Spain (or Mexico by then). But I think they will not incorporate California, Nevada and Texas, as they will already be big enough.
More then likely if Louisiana became independent and assuming Americans wouldn’t pull a Hawaii or Texas. Oregon and Washington would be a Canadian province.
Well, just Washington had the US Congress not been an asshole with controlling the Columbia River. Oregon would still be a US territory/state but more significant as a "border" with Portland being what Seattle is today
@@MarloSoBalJr assuming that the US doesn't straight up annex Louisiana in a war, it wouldn't make sense for the US to have territory on the opposite side of the continent without a land border (especially without the Panama Canal)
You cannot say "the US would definitely not develop into a superpower" access to the west coast is of course important for US power projection but the vast majority of the US population, industry and economy has always existed east of the missississpi
@pdwhudson1Jamaica is not and has never been Spanish speaking. The two largest Black Caribbean countries are not. The only two not considered “latino”. 🤔
Without the Louisiana purchase, I think it’s unlikely that Deseret or California would ever have come into existence as independent nations. It wouldn’t have been possible to build the trails that went across the continent that allowed the settlement of those areas, and Mexico might not have been as willing to allow American settlers to encroach upon their territory if the United States didn’t share a direct border with them anyway. Certainly, in the case of Deseret, it would’ve been a problem for Mormon settlers to set up their own state in predominantly Catholic Mexico (or in Louisiana, which would also be predominantly Catholic), when the United States was not anywhere near their border, and was not about to take control of that territory anyway.
I feel like America would have still eventually gotten that territory as Napoleon’s downfall was soon to come and I definitely think America would try to capitalize on that opportunity.
I disagree with the summary. I think if the purchase didn't go ahead when it did. It may just have happened at a later time. Or, the territory would have gained it's independence from France. Then developed closer ties to it's neighbors, the USA. Then the countries may have merged and Louisiana would have just been one large state.
The one constant is this that determined that Louisiana would be sold is Napoleon, who sold it in 1803. It boils down to French success in Haiti (as mentioned in video) as well as French success in the War of the Second Coalition. If Napoleon could ever a lasting peace AND win in Haiti, Louisiana stays French. Since Haiti was a back burner war that could only be effectively fought when no other Coalition War is being fought, Louisiana would eventually go up for sale, the sole exception being if the US joins a Coalition with Britain to divide Louisiana (as hinted in the video). Since Britain wanted to curb French expansion, getting the French out of Louisiana would certainly be accomplished by the sale of Louisiana. France will be out by 1815, barring some Miracle at Borodino or Waterloo. If France still has Louisiana, the Brits will want France to divest themselves of Louisiana. While the Brits would expand Canada, they would not want to over-expand. The Louisiana Purchase was inevitable. It was only a matter of who sold it and when.
Minor nit: @ 4:25 you state: "kicked France out of North America for good", however the islands of St. Pierre & Miquelon are located a few km off the coast of Newfoundland and are still part of France to this day.
I'm pretty impressed how much a Portuguese like you knows about American history, good job. It'd be pretty interesting to think about. I can imagine Louisiana becoming it's own independent Kingdom from France, America wouldn't be a superpower, it's strange to think about.
It would've been way better for the indigenous people because they would live as equals in the new French speaking country of Louisiana, or possibly some of them would be able to retain their independence
oui, mais les indigènes auraient été obligés de s'adapter aussi, ils seraient donc devenus des français parlant avec des accents issus des tribus indiennes et personne n'aurait rien compris! lol
I imagine that if Napoleon didn't accept, the us would join the next coalition as they would probably see a potential threat to them on their continent and take it as the french didn't have any military or at least not a lot and it would take a long time to get there. I imagine it being divided up between the us and spain.
I'm not ok for the flag but France became a republic in 1848 and remove the symbol of the lys flower. Quebec have lys flower in his flag but hé was take by british before the end of the french monarchy.
Maybe most of the North would be where the Native American's would have gone, by the US or otherwise and maybe they would be more hands-off like they own it and they can extract the recourses but the tribes have day to day responsibility for their people
The French loss to Haiti 🇭🇹 combined with napoleon Bonaparte desperate need for money to finance his wars is why that huge territory was sold for the great bargain it was
I actually think the Native population might've stayed thriving because the French seemed much less likely to pull some of the things the U.S. presidents had done. It might've actually become a safe haven during The Trail of Tears and other forced removals. They could've possibly gone to war with the U.S. over that and it'd be interesting to see what side the French, Spanish, and/or Mexicans would take. Would the Civil War have gone down without the U.S. expanding?
The thing is, the Mississippi Valley is what makes America the richest country in the world. It's an enormous swath of the most productive farmland in the world, with 10,000 miles of navigable waterways to ship it cheaply to anywhere in the world. No country even comes close to having an agricultural base like the US, especially when you factor in cost of transport. A cheap, secure food supply is why the East Coast and West Coast were able to develop into the financial and entertainment powerhouses they became.
Napoleon had planned that after defeating the rebellion in St Domingue (Haiti) he would create an army of battle experienced black/colored soldiers from the colony and use them as a major part of his military force in a campaign to carve out a North American Empire. The colony (St Domingue/Haiti) would've served as a naval and land base and a source of funding and supplies and colonists. He had already formed an alliance with and had 20,000+ armed Native Americans from the French Territory on standby. His plan was to seize a Gulf port from the US, conquer and colonize Louisiana Territory and expand it westwards to the Pacific using his black, Native American and French armies (and possibly his Legion St Georges aka Black Legion - Europe's first all black regiment made up of free blacks from French American colonies and maybe his Polish Legions). However all those plans fell apart with the devastating loss to the Haitian Revolutionaries and thus the loss of his black army, naval and land base, and supply and funding source, causing him to abandon his dreams of a vast American Empire and sell Louisiana at a bargain price. Interesting to imagine black Generals and soldiers cutting a swath across North America
Wow... lots of great info here and hypothicals to think about. Obviously we would never know how this would play out, but it is fun to speculate. One obvious result of the US not purchasing Louisiana would that was not mention was the War of 1812 probably would not have occurred. Also, it would have likely avoided the Civil War from occurring as well.
Great video! But you forgot to mention something. Is the large amount of Saint-Domingue (Haïti) « créoles » refugees and their slaves after the haitian revolution in reality it had a big impact on the Louisiana demographics maintaining french language and emerging the french creole that most of the cajun speaks nowdays. Maybe Louisiana would be a creole/french speaking country.
Alterhis (French RUclipsr) made a similar scenario about the same topic. It limits Napoléon s’military wars, he has to be more careful of his wars, cannot sent 100 of thousands of troops , especially not in Russia or Spain , which both extremes located in Eurasia cost him both his troops and his reputation. No invasion of Spain equals no following revolts and revolutions no Brazilian Empire either as the reason was the fear of the Portuguese Royal Family seeing France taking Lisboa and relocating the Portuguese Empire in Rio de Janeiro thus elevating the status of Colony to Kingdom (Kingdom of Brazil) Napoléon might get killed or imprisoned easily with a smaller army (because no funds of the Louisiana purchase) . The anti-napoleon coalitions still happens and end up winning. The French (traditionalist) Monarchy is restored as the Emperor is deposed. If its a Louis (Louis XVII or XVIII) he would want to restore the prestige of the Royalty and what better way to do it by increasing colonial efforts on the colony that bears your name? That colonization would anger the americans and make them allying with the british. From Louisiana the french might also be able to recapture haiti. We could see new balances of powers Hispano-French Alliance: -The Spanish Viceroyalties -Louisiana Governorship and maybe some Antilles overseas Vs Anglosphere The French might even give more and more autonomy to the Louisianians and maybe give them full independence by placing a member of the Bourbons as its King or Emperor on Louisiana. I doubt the Spanish territories become independent or if it happens its way later in the future. Regardless, with these territories both the Spanish territories and Louisiana become wealthier by each decade.
10:25 Option D, they quietly declare independence by neglect when thing go south for Napoleon, possibly with French approve so as to keep them out of British hands
I think the United States would have simply conquered it by force, especially since they were not big fans of Napoleon, who was himself not the most diplomatic of men and would certainly give them a casus belli. That means that the US would become an *ally* of Britain at this time, instead of declaring the War of 1812. Conquering Louisiana would have been very easy given how empty it was, and especially because France was already fighting the entire Europe. So it would have ended exactly in the same way except France wouldn’t have got a dime for it. The only way for Louisiana to have remained French would be if France managed to negociate a lasting peace with its European neighbours.
I've been thinking about a related alternate history question: What if Spain never gave Louisiana back to France? So far, the simplest answer I have is that Louisiana would find itself becoming a part of Mexico and then a part of the United States once American settlers populated the area.
Napoleon should have kept New Orleans and asked US to defend it agaist UK to keep a small territory in a strategical place of North America, and then sell the rest of Louisiana.
How would this impact the civil war? By removing the possibility of expansion westward could we see a world where we expand north or south? There would be far reaching consequences of this and it is very interesting. You could almost think of Napoleon as a foreign founding father in a sort for the modern US. Maybe that's too far but he did allow for the US as it is today to come into form by easily allowing expansion and kickstarting our development.
Given the strong momentum for westward expansion, I have to believe that Americans would have moved into the territory. Look at Texas. Americans moved in and eventually decided to take it from Mexico.
The impact of a french (independent or not) Louisiana on the World Wars would also be quite considerable. Continental France would be in a much better position to defend themselves; on the other hand there wouldn't be a strong United States that could dominate the western front. Germany could have allied with one of the American nations or played on their respective competitions to gain an advantage. I think it would be reasonable to assume that this period then wouldn't have ended with a total collapse of the German Empire and compromise would have been made.
A French-“Latino” creole country a’ la Haiti? Interesting 🤔. I guess the modern end result would be based on how the US civil war would have impacted an independent French Louisiana.
At 11:08 ...I'm a Vexillologist and a member of NAVA...the pelican on the Louisiana flag has gone through several designs in it's history...but NEVER has the design emulated the Fleur de Lis...the symbol was that of the mother bird vulning herself (piecing her breast to let her blood feed her children...a symbol of self sacrifice much like that of Christ)...
I see a different trajectory. The Haitian Revolution would have spread to Louisiana and a strong union between Haiti and Louisiana would have been created. The black population of the Southern US would have had an easy escape route und slavery would have ended much sooner in the US. And of course, the language in Haiti-Louisiana would have been Creole.
The Brits would have NEVER let France take back Qubec. The hard wood for ships masts were a vital strategic resource for the Britsh navy, the same way the US will never let Tiwan go because there forces need the chips. Nether could do it at home.
louisiana is still very much influenced by the french origins. fleur des lis are a very popular community symbol, we’ve got a lot of buildings/families/streets named in French, a small (dying) dialectical french speaking population, and of course lots of other influences from Spain, Caribbean and indigenous.
I’m just a little more upset that Louisiana was carved down to its current meager size and completely left with absolutely zero decent beachfront property. West Florida was a complete travesty and neither Mississippi nor Alabama should have a coastline. After all, wasn’t Mobile the capital of Louisiana originally, followed by Biloxi? 😡🤬
France couldn't control Louisiana anymore due to the war on Europe, british blockade in the sea, revolts for independence in Louisiana itself and either the US or UK would take it by force anyway. Knowing that it was just a matter of time in losing it, then Napoleon just sold it instead, and sold to US in order to avoid having it falling into british hands.
*I KNOW IT'S AUSTRALIA NOT AUSTRIA, I'M SORRY*
Also, what other 'what if' moments do you think could have changed world history had they gone differently?
what if italy hadn't united?
What is the USSR hadn't formed
what of zealandia didn't sink
What if the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth successfully conquered the Muscovy/Russia and expanded to Siberia?
Try Maybe What if the Sykes picot agreement did not happen and Hashami Arabia became a reality
I would imagine that the existence of a large French speaking state in North America would mean several large revolts in Quebec along with a much stronger succession movement than in our timeline
It would become the French version of the United States
@@TheIgorGruzdev In what sense? America would have nowhere near the cultural influence in this scenario. If anything I could see Louisiana becoming more like Argentina. A mix of mostly French, Southern European, black and indigenous influence.
There probably would've been massive Quebecois migration similar to what happened in Nova Scotia.
True
@@TheIgorGruzdev It wouldn't there just would not be enough French people. I think USA would just conquer it.
France had an early policy of french immigrants living on the edges of the territory and leaving the indigenous peoples alone on the interior. I think its possible that this would have had a bigger impact than we expect.
Thank you for this video. Imagine, a larger Louisiana French civilization in the Americas! French Creole culture would be everywhere.
Just imagine if we never were sold to America, yes I said it as a creole myself my ancestral ties are with the French
Native Americans in these territories would also still be the majority and live in way better conditions
And a Mexico saved from the gringos
The US would have invaded Louisiana. And swallowed it up. It was a very scarcely populated territory and France did not have the means the defend it.
The main difference would be that France and the US would have had a much more tense relationship during the XIXth century and France would have probably never gifted the Statue of Liberty to the US.
So the US would lose one of their main symbols
You Louisianians, do you speak Cajun or only english?
I don't think that Louisiana could have survived in the way it was structured. For Louisiana to live it would need a radical change in its political structure and would desperatly need A LOT more local control, but because of how large and unpopulated it is, the french would have to rely on the natives tribes to defend it, so most of louisiana would actually be a web of alliances and protectorates, with only a few real french controlled and populated holdouts based in strategically centered places such as St Louis, Des moines or Pierre.
I believe that if Louisiana remained a french possession, it's identity would be all about pretecting themselves from the americans and a being wall to american expansion into mostly native lands with the exeption of the large french cities, all placed on the Misissispi river for easier access to the outside world. There also would definetly be skirmishes between the american migrants going east and the french/ natives defending their lands.
Also as a result of france protecting and giving autonomy to its native tribes in louisiana to defend itself, France would undirectly or directly if desired, be in the postition of the defendor of native rights in the americas and any trail of tears like genocide would make yourself an enemy for life with France and its allies, so unless they want problem with france most nations would be more leanient with it's tribes.
Damn I wrote more than I tought lol, great video though, you should go more in depth in explaining your scenarios I would love that
Except if French Lousiana decides to emulate the US, organizes itself as another land of the free and the brave, and competes with the US to attract immigration of any religion. They succeed, grow strong to deter any attempt of invasion from US of British North America, start their own expansion westwards.
@@dikranlutufyan1001 I can see that happen but I don't think they would conquer new territories by force to expand, at least not on a national level but maybe local tribes expand therefore as a whole louisiana expands. But I could see natives tribes joining Louisiana in order have protection from the other powers that are expanding in the area like mexico or britain.
Which would mean mexico and britain get the claims they had IRL like british columbia and caifornia but everything in between is louisiana
@@dikranlutufyan1001 But I can definetly see migration being highly encouraged since the land is so sparse it would be a necessity. tought I'm not sure if the louisiana gouvernement would promote and emulate the US, I think the louisiana coulture would be all about freedom and a place to escape. I would compare it to autralia more than the USA
Fun discussion. Please remember that France still "owns" part of North America, albeit a tiny part: The overseas collectivity of "Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon."
4:15 France is in North America to this day
Pierre and St. Miquelon
@Patrick Hudson somebody needed to - Gavin is the only one to comment
I’m from Louisiana and it’s interesting when you meet somebody from Missouri or Wisconsin with a common Louisiana last name. It’s like technically we’re of the same heritage but we are nothing alike
If you look at state demographic maps the whole area is ethnically German now
@@shazanali692 I know it's a lot of German/Polish/Russian type names up there and obviously we all speak English now, but I've met people up there named like Maringouin or Arceneaux, and it's like, ok there's only one place that name comes from, why did you come here and why didn't you come home ? Our lost snow frog cousins
Question since you're from Louisiana is french language making a come back or no?
@@noworriesbehappymr.x7681as someone who is also from Louisiana, I haven’t heard somebody speak French here literally ever lol but I myself do personally speak it
I feel like we probably would have still just taken it by force tbh.
It is the most likely scenario, yeah, I agree!
@@General.Knowledge what do you think would happen if Arizona and Sonora became one state under the US? What stats would the combined states be? What would be gained and what would be lost? Stuff like that.
@Patrick Hudson Napoleon was fighting and losing at the time of the Louisiana purchase. That's what sparked louisiana purchase and then he would later go on the russia in winter and completely demolishes army so
@@thewonderingbuddhist6123 He was not losing in 1803 at the time of the purchase lol, he wasn't even emperor yet at this point the Napoleonic Wars still had 12 years to go
Still he was pretty damn busy so any hypothetical Franco-American war would have likely taken place after peace in Europe
@@thewonderingbuddhist6123Peak of the First French Empire was in 1805
Yes, make a video about New Spain too!
Sure!
I like how in a French video on the same subject the video title it's "what if Napoleon hadn't sold Lousiana?" and here it's from the opposite perspective
Suggestion:
How would post-Roman Mediterranean coast North Africa look like if it weren't for the arab expansions?
@Patrick Hudson not white? Majority was Berberic. Berbers are the native people of North Africa. The Vandalic Germanic Kingdom in North Africa was assimilated with the Berbers even before the Arab Invasion. Gadaafi in fact was not Arab he was Berberic only maybe coast of Lybia (Cyrenaica), Tunesian Coast maybe would be majority White cause of the Greeks settlement. But North Africa would be more Christian i think like Egyptian Coptic.
I think going back 1400 years is a little too much to speculate. If you proposed without European colonialism would be feasible.
Most probably Coptic in Egypt and Catholic in the Magreb. I don't believe physical appearence is an issue in this respect. The Arabs, like the Romans, had a huge cultural impact in the territories they conquered, but not so much from a biological point of view. In both cases, they were usually a very minoritarian ruling elite.
@@tubickkema3009 what about the economy?
@@incognitoman3656 would be better then now White Countries are better generally to live than non white however Gaddafi‘s Lybia was great Economy and was comparable with Spain or Greece. But it was destroyed by French, American interess
The only problem I can think of with these hypothetical scenarios is considering the land itself. For instance, Mexico would no more be a superpower if it kept all its territory than it is in reality, since an overwhelming majority of what it's keeping is desert. One of the reasons the US was so successful was the varied lands they claimed, which allowed greater amounts of farmland, and easier industrialization, as well as a massive amount of port cities. Louisiana would have to expand greatly to become a viable nation, especially if its population remained low and Mexico wouldn't have any more ports or arable land than it does now.
That is a good point!
While I agree with your overall premise, aka I don't think Mexico would have become a superpower either, I do think Mexico would become more powerful overall. Of course, we don't know about how it might have gone, but if Mexico had kept what became Texas and California, then they would have a lot of very important land/future regions under their control.
Wouldn't they have the oil in Texas and more rights in oil in Gulf of Mexico
@@archstanton6102 Yes, that would make them oil independent and wealthy, but would it make them a superpower?
@@l.n.3372 Texas and California were never part of Mexico though.
I could actually see it splitting, just not as much as Latin America did. The distance between the two main cities that existed at the time, St. Louis and New Orleans, is big even by modern standards. That's a good thousand miles. St. Louis would have more commerce and interaction with the US territories on the east side of the river while New Orleans would have more trade with Mexico. That would lead the cultures to diverge. At minimum, at least part of it would get taken by the US. Mexico would probably be bigger than it is now. It would depend on how an independent Louisiana affected US immigration to Texas. Without that influx, I don't think Texas would have revolted, at least not successfully. California, with it's central valley and ports would probably become independent from Mexico, possibly taking Baja with it.
It's entirely possible that Louisiana remaining a separate French colony would eventually result in Federalism similar to what happened in Canada, with 3 (or maybe 5 if the natives formed their own) independent provinces united into one independent country.
@@JeremyLevi We totally need an alt-history set in this universe.
Then the North American snail and frog populations would be in great danger and risk of extinction.
Haha France joke
Still is. I had frogs' legs in Florida last November
@@pranawdhital HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Yes funny i know
France always had one single problem with its colonies: no settlers. France was so fertile it could almost always feed its whole very large population (3rd after China and India then). The settlers were forced to go there; mostly beggars and prostitutes picked up in the streets and put on a boat the week after. So the population was very low and could not defend itself.
A little similar to the Portuguese. They arrived to a bunch of places and then had no one to leave there to actually establish colonies. I think it's one of the reasons that contributed to their 'Outpost' Empire model. All they could afford (population-wise) was a small garrison and some traders.
c'est ça! un pays qui peut nourrir toute sa population n'a pas de "migrants"!
@@jeannesandner1918 Je ne parlais pas du tout de notre époque mais du passé où avec 25M d'habitants la France était de très loin le pays le plus peuplé grâce à son sol très fertile.
@@nicolasviard2252 Il y avait les huguenots qui voulait émigrer... mais la couronne ne le permit pas, craignant un état protestant indépendant.
As à French canadien I certainly wishes it happened, but knowing history I know it was impossible.
It's interesting that the French were so lenient with the American Natives compared to other colonial powers, when in contrast they were pretty rough on some of their other colonies, like in French Indochina. I suppose back in the days of slow communication, how a country acted once settled in a faraway place heavily depended on who was leading the mission, and not so much on a global policy.
@Patrick Hudson new world slavery is by mother's. A female slave always gave birth to slaves regardless who the father was.
A Cambodian friend told me that as soon as they arrived in Indochina, the French prevented in-extremis the dismemberment of Cambodia by Vietnam and Thailand. So it is partly thanks to them that the country still exists.
@@N0Time Very interesting, I never heard about that
@@albevanhanoy Before the wars of independence, the French seem in general to have behaved quite well towards the natives in their colonies, such as in America where marriages with Amerindians were frequent, in India or even in some parts of Africa where slavery was abolished by them.
On the other hand, there is the case of Algeria, where the natives received as an affront, and rightly so, the unequal and discriminatory "Crémieux decree", in 1889, which granted French nationality to Algerian Jews but not to Muslims. I think that this partly explains the resentment that persists today towards them...
However, the Spanish enslaved some Native Americans, before The Valladolid debate around 1550, and they were not much better treated afterwards. During his naval tour of the world, Jean-François de La Pérouse describes being horrified by the way the Amerindians were treated in Chile in 1785.
The English and later the US (French and Indian War, Pontiac's War etc.) , almost totally exterminated them. The French, on the other hand, have committed neither one nor the other towards Amerindians.
@pdwhudson1 If you read Article 1 of the «Code Noir», decree passed by King Louis XIV of France in 1685 defining the conditions of slavery in the French colonial empire, you will be very surprised to find out who had a certain monopoly of the slave trade in the French colonies... you can do the same research concerning the United States.
then Americans would have to ask "monsieur une baguette, merci"
et aussi faire régulièrement la "révolution"!
The French sold Louisiana after their army was decimated in Haiti, to Yellow Fever and Malaria, as well as the Haitians. Napoleon had plans for New Orleans that were disrupted by that loss.
@Marek Cracovia So losing some 90% of deployed troops had no effect on French plans? The British blockade was also a US embargo on the French.
The short answer is, If Napoleon decided not to sell the Louisiana territory, the US would have likely invaded it anyway. Considering he had much greater ambitions in Europe at the time. He realized keeping it was not possible.
Napoleon had planned that after defeating the rebellion in St Domingue (Haiti) he would create an army of battle experienced black/colored soldiers from the colony and use them as a major part of his military force in a campaign to carve out a North American Empire. The colony (St Domingue/Haiti) would've served as a naval and land base and a source of funding and supplies and colonists. He had already formed an alliance with and had 20,000+ armed Native Americans from the French Territory on standby. His plan was to seize a Gulf port from the US, conquer and colonize Louisiana Territory and expand it westwards to the Pacific using his black, Native American and French armies (and possibly his Legion St Georges aka Black Legion - Europe's first all black regiment made up of free blacks from French American colonies and maybe his Polish Legions). However all those plans fell apart with the devastating loss to the Haitian Revolutionaries and thus the loss of his black army, naval and land base, and supply and funding source, causing him to abandon his dreams of a vast American Empire and sell Louisiana at a bargain price.
Interesting to imagine black Generals and soldiers cutting a swath across North America
@@curtisthomas2670 The US would've steamrolled that army.
@@beepbop6542 right 😂
@lif6737 They matched the UK military blow for blow in 1812.
Top notch flag work. I just added a goof on the IMDb about a TV historical documentary where a fully professional and accredited historian talked about how in 1745 Bonnie Prince Charlie might have been helped by Louis XV, but illustrated it with a Tricolour. Not to be invented until 44 years later (and also not a thing Louis would want to be associated with!) Your use of flags is perfection.
Love vexillology
Texas and Deseret probably would not have developed if Louisiana was not sold to the US. Texas' independence was based upon early migration in the 1820's to 1840's from the East, especially Tennessee. Mormon migration from the East happened a little later, in the mid century. Both would have had to cross the new French nation. This would have been less likely because of the new nation protecting its borders. Large streams of people would not have taken the risk to get through to their prospective destinations. I think Mexico would have been more likely to have retained these territories for some time. Of course Great Britain might have made a play for territory or the US might have eventually started flexing its military muscle and just taken over Louisiana by force.
Well the Mormons initially settled in Missouri before the army kicked them out. It is likely they would just settled in French Louisiana. Unless the French kick them out. As for taxes a lot of European immigration occurred as well primarily from the German speaking countries. It's possible taxes would have been created from this but I don't know.
The US would have expanded northward into British Canada then onwards to Alaska (eventually) but Mexico would maintain California and I believe New France (Louisiana) would have claimed Oregon Territory to have a port in the Pacific -- sandwiched between USA in Columbia & Alaska and Mexico in California
0:55 A couple of irrelevant pauses when Spain controlled Lousiana??? Spain hold it arround 1/3 of the time. Lousiana reached its biggest developement under Spanish rule. And actually Lousiana passed almost directly from Spanish to US hands without French never actually ruling it in between, since Napoleon made Spanish kings to gift it to him already with the plan on mind of selling it and make some money for his wars, so it was sold to the US assap after he (only de-jure) obtained it.
I do agree with your comment that in this video Spanish rule over North America is completely minimised and the hypothesis as exposed is not realistic at all. In my opinion, most probably US Consolidation would have not happened as it did, and 60 year later the Confederation could have won the later civil war over the Union. For sure Mexico would become independent from Spain & most probably a much richer country today. Cuba and Puerto Rico could still be part of Spain.
Mexico would be much bigger, the natives would have their own land, french and spain would still have colonies in North America
Not likely lol.
It's most likely it ends up as US territory anyway by buying it off someone else (i.e. Spain/UK/other) or France itself or conquered since manifest destiny was running rampant at those times
I actually think about how this scenario can go on a lot. I think ANY independent Louisiana though would be vulnerable to losing the Great Plains to America, if the USA still exists. Being the USA's ONLY western neighbor during a period of expansionism would be a death sentence if it's not backed by France. If it's population is high enough and truly unwilling to join the USA it might be able to avoid annexation (France could threaten intervention) but the loss of it's vast lesser populated territories would be a huge probability.
Most folks here commit a fallacy. You all suppose that the territory would not have been settled by French people. But if Napoleon would not have sold it the history would probably have
been different.
I mean I know that but the problem with starting this timeline off in 1801 is there's not much time for the population to grow before American starts seeking expansion. A better divergence would be La Salle finding the area where New Orleans would be built in the 1680's. Additional time for the region to be developed = more population. More population = less likely to get annexed by the U.S.
likely cases :
- Britain takes the north half after napoleonic wars (if not all), now Canada goes all the way south to the Oregon California border in the west
- Lousiana is the one to take or merge with Texas and expand west to California fueled by the gold rush
- The french mexican empire works with support/logistics from Louisiana and forms a big french alliance or state
-Its likely that the US would have tryed a de facto ocupation of the north of Louisiana that was mostly unocupied/unguarded by the french like Brazil expanded west through the Amazon
- US would expand into the Caribean instead
An idea: what if Alaska wasn't be sold to USA?
If Russia managed to hold on to it until the Russian Civil War, it would’ve become a refuge for the whites similar to how Taiwan is to China. All the royals and aristocrats and white supporters would flee to Alaska, and become an ally of the US during the Cold War.
It would be now part of Canada.
I really don't think anything would happen besides the US getting involved in the Napoleonic wars (unlikely) or the US invading after Louisiana gets independence like Mexico. Louisiana had no population other than native tribes and New Orleans, so they wouldn't be able to really stop American settlers. What im imagining is the whole Texas, Mexico, US thing but Louisiana gets totally annexed.
“Not all the territory was effectively rules and administered by the French, but they claimed it, and nobody else did.”
Native Americans:
Am I a joke to you?
There was no other superpower with cannons and an organized army to defend it.
Native American have a ranging area not a territorial area. They have a nomadic concept of territories. They don't believe that they Chief have to right to assign territorial controls of a certain piece of land with all the right and power that that entail. The French claimed the right to assign economical rights to the area and sometime it is actually effective in defending that claim.
Some very important things also to consider: WARS. First, the Amereican Civil War was a conflict long brought on by admission of slave states vs. free states in expansion out west, so that would have either prevented or delayed the war, and all of the ramifications it affected. Second, the Mexican-American War would probaably not have happened, but maybe an American-Louisiana/France War instead for similar reasons. Third, the Spanish-American War was actually extensively fought in and for the Pacific, so that would have been a differenct, especially considering its future territorial dominance (i.e. Hawaii, Guam, etc). Fourth, Without Pacific states, the US would have probably not had the initiative and need to protect/instigate Panama's war of independence and the development/control of the Panama Canal. Fifth, many of these factors would have not made the US so dominant of an economy and power to have been involved to help determine the end of World War 1. Sixth, Hawaii may have remained an independent country, so, without Hawaii, no Pearl Harbor, thus no (or at least much later) US World War 2 involvement, meaning that war could have either ended with Nazi and/or Soviet dominance in most of Europe. Seventh, US probably would have not ended up being offered Alaska for purchase, with a lot of ramifications there, with Alaska either remaining Russian which affects the Cold War, or a Czarist/Whites stronghold after the Russian revolution, or being taken over by Britain or Imperial Japan in some conflict (maybe most likely the latter two). Eigth, US maybe would not have the economy to become a world power effecting so many things, i.e. the Cold War, etc. Ninth, and maybe most important to discuss, the Napoleanic Wars: after his defeat, what would have happened to the region? Would it had been ceded/divided to the US or Britain or Spain? Would Napolean's return been there instead, where he could have established a French Empire in absentia? Actually, considering how France has somehow kept most of its former colonies and converting them into "just more parts of France" and not lost them like the British, it is not such a wild thing to think the region could have even just become "part of France" to this day, with France being maybe the current Superpower even.
10:56: AUSTRIA and New Zealand?
It was problably a tongue slip
Definitely a mistake!
I just comment to note a recurrent mistake in your videos : when you talk about the "fleur de lys/lis", the s is not supposed to be silent.
It is an exception because usually in french, the s in the end of a word is silent. But here, it's not the case.
(I'm a french native speaker btw)
Ok, I'll be that guy. It can't be the 31st largest and 19th smallest. With 50 states, those numbers need to add to 51.
Another great Video. Thank you.
It would be super interesting if you made one about 'Spanish Florida', as I'd never heard of it before this video. 😁
Actually american victory in the revolution is consideret to be by help of spain and france, considering the efact that british likely gained a lot of expirience in the napoleonic wars it is not unreasonable to think of the americans going back to a colony
my question is that why did they give that little part in the northern part of Louisiana to Canada
To simplify the border I believe, I'm glad because I live in that region in Canada
I think so yeah, to make it simply go along a straight line and avoid the disputes that would arise from setting the borders naturally
Read about the Oregon Treaty (aka Treaty of 1818) between the US and the UK if you want the full answer to your question, but that's basically when they agreed that the 49th parallel would form the boundary between US and British territory in the western half of North America. The very northernmost parts of the original Louisiana purchase lie north of that line.
@@JeremyLevi oh yes I forgot that I have already seen that on Oversimplified's video
I had relatives live in what is now the state of Iowa in the late 1700s to early 1800’s, there were no French towns or French troops it was wide open wild space. Just like there small boats crashed on the Iowa side of the Mississippi River, in a major wind/rain storm. They were sorta lost and confused by the storm. There are a lot of rivers and streams that flow in to the Mississippi River. Some were names and mapped and some were not.
There was only one know French town that what is located in the boot of the state of Missouri. There is a famous lead mine (the worlds largest) there and the French did not want it to fall in to the hands of the English. At the time lead balls where used as gun ammunition.
I think it is necessary to note that the French Overseas Territory of St. Pierre and Miquelon is still a French territory. France's prescense is more like it's "hanging on a thread", so to say.
A very strong thread. France is in no danger of Canada trying to take it by force. lol
Vasconcelos would have loved this scenario, he used to call Napoleon an imbecile for selling Louisiana to the anglos. For him the purchase of Louisiana was one of the main reasons why the continent ended being dominated by anglos instead of hispanics.
Yup
Hispanics?! Lol
Great video as always.
Thank you!
A little note, the wording at 0:20 makes it sounds like the city of New Orleans has 4.6 million people. The entire state of Louisiana has 4.6 million people but the city of New Orleans has 380,000. Otherwise, great video!
This is a massive domino in our historic timeline. One could pose all kinds of hypothetical questions - major and trivial - based on it. Could Japan have bought Alaska instead of the U.S.? Or could Imperial Russia have swallowed the West Coast? Would a smaller U.S. still get involved in the two world wars? Would the Clampetts and Walshes still have moved to Beverly Hills?
If Louisiana will remain French, the US would have two options - attack Louisiana or gain new territories elsewhere. As long as France was their ally, it is more likely that they will expand to the north. France will support them against the British and US will add parts of Canada as their states, while Louisiana will gain French speaking parts of Canada. US will expand until New Spain (or Mexico by then). But I think they will not incorporate California, Nevada and Texas, as they will already be big enough.
More then likely if Louisiana became independent and assuming Americans wouldn’t pull a Hawaii or Texas. Oregon and Washington would be a Canadian province.
Well, just Washington had the US Congress not been an asshole with controlling the Columbia River. Oregon would still be a US territory/state but more significant as a "border" with Portland being what Seattle is today
@@MarloSoBalJr assuming that the US doesn't straight up annex Louisiana in a war, it wouldn't make sense for the US to have territory on the opposite side of the continent without a land border (especially without the Panama Canal)
You cannot say "the US would definitely not develop into a superpower" access to the west coast is of course important for US power projection but the vast majority of the US population, industry and economy has always existed east of the missississpi
Hello there
General kenobi
Roblox
@@maxivanzu8228 you ARE a bold one
Very good thoughts!
What if Cuba, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico formed the Antillean Confederation?
The West Indies Federation were a similar failed attempted country! Uniting Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Jamaica.
@pdwhudson1yes, they are the only three
@pdwhudson1Jamaica is not and has never been Spanish speaking.
The two largest Black Caribbean countries are not. The only two not considered “latino”. 🤔
Without the Louisiana purchase, I think it’s unlikely that Deseret or California would ever have come into existence as independent nations. It wouldn’t have been possible to build the trails that went across the continent that allowed the settlement of those areas, and Mexico might not have been as willing to allow American settlers to encroach upon their territory if the United States didn’t share a direct border with them anyway. Certainly, in the case of Deseret, it would’ve been a problem for Mormon settlers to set up their own state in predominantly Catholic Mexico (or in Louisiana, which would also be predominantly Catholic), when the United States was not anywhere near their border, and was not about to take control of that territory anyway.
I feel like America would have still eventually gotten that territory as Napoleon’s downfall was soon to come and I definitely think America would try to capitalize on that opportunity.
31st largest means 20th smallest - since there are 50 states, the 2 numbers must add up to 51.
Mistake at the start. If Louisiana is the 31st largest state then it's the 20th smallest (of 50) NOT 19th!
I disagree with the summary. I think if the purchase didn't go ahead when it did. It may just have happened at a later time. Or, the territory would have gained it's independence from France. Then developed closer ties to it's neighbors, the USA. Then the countries may have merged and Louisiana would have just been one large state.
Yeah but it’s more interesting to imagine them as fantasy independent countries
The one constant is this that determined that Louisiana would be sold is Napoleon, who sold it in 1803. It boils down to French success in Haiti (as mentioned in video) as well as French success in the War of the Second Coalition. If Napoleon could ever a lasting peace AND win in Haiti, Louisiana stays French. Since Haiti was a back burner war that could only be effectively fought when no other Coalition War is being fought, Louisiana would eventually go up for sale, the sole exception being if the US joins a Coalition with Britain to divide Louisiana (as hinted in the video). Since Britain wanted to curb French expansion, getting the French out of Louisiana would certainly be accomplished by the sale of Louisiana. France will be out by 1815, barring some Miracle at Borodino or Waterloo. If France still has Louisiana, the Brits will want France to divest themselves of Louisiana. While the Brits would expand Canada, they would not want to over-expand. The Louisiana Purchase was inevitable. It was only a matter of who sold it and when.
Great Video 🎞
Minor nit: @ 4:25 you state: "kicked France out of North America for good", however the islands of St. Pierre & Miquelon are located a few km off the coast of Newfoundland and are still part of France to this day.
I'm pretty impressed how much a Portuguese like you knows about American history, good job.
It'd be pretty interesting to think about. I can imagine Louisiana becoming it's own independent Kingdom from France, America wouldn't be a superpower, it's strange to think about.
I doubt France would keep Louisiana to long considering Haiti and the Napoleonic Wars but most of this sounds possible.
What if the I.S. hadn't bought Alaska? (Alternate History)
Either UK would have attacked Russia before Ww2 or nothing would have changed
@@Flattithefish Agree 100%
Trump would have tried to buy it, like he did with Greenland.
A Russian Alaska later on in history would have definitely been very interesting!
@@General.Knowledge Indeed.
It would've been way better for the indigenous people because they would live as equals in the new French speaking country of Louisiana, or possibly some of them would be able to retain their independence
oui, mais les indigènes auraient été obligés de s'adapter aussi, ils seraient donc devenus des français parlant avec des accents issus des tribus indiennes et personne n'aurait rien compris! lol
@@jeannesandner1918 French indigenous relations in North America were way better, they were treated as equals
I imagine that if Napoleon didn't accept, the us would join the next coalition as they would probably see a potential threat to them on their continent and take it as the french didn't have any military or at least not a lot and it would take a long time to get there. I imagine it being divided up between the us and spain.
They bought Lousiana but they never pay!
I'm not ok for the flag but France became a republic in 1848 and remove the symbol of the lys flower.
Quebec have lys flower in his flag but hé was take by british before the end of the french monarchy.
Maybe most of the North would be where the Native American's would have gone, by the US or otherwise and maybe they would be more hands-off like they own it and they can extract the recourses but the tribes have day to day responsibility for their people
The French loss to Haiti 🇭🇹 combined with napoleon Bonaparte desperate need for money to finance his wars is why that huge territory was sold for the great bargain it was
I actually think the Native population might've stayed thriving because the French seemed much less likely to pull some of the things the U.S. presidents had done. It might've actually become a safe haven during The Trail of Tears and other forced removals. They could've possibly gone to war with the U.S. over that and it'd be interesting to see what side the French, Spanish, and/or Mexicans would take. Would the Civil War have gone down without the U.S. expanding?
Imagine if most north America spoke french.That would have been awesome.
Also, maybe the lingua franca of the modern world would have been french, not english (since a smaller usa would have less influence)
@@widmo206 you forget about the influence of the british empire
There were still Native Americans in Louisiana though, since there weren't a lot of French Colonists migrating to North America
How?
Did he just call Australia Austria
10:56 … it killed me and I had to scroll for this comment to make sure I wasn’t the only one that heard it
0:10 the "L" in Louisiana now makes sense! 🤔
The thing is, the Mississippi Valley is what makes America the richest country in the world. It's an enormous swath of the most productive farmland in the world, with 10,000 miles of navigable waterways to ship it cheaply to anywhere in the world. No country even comes close to having an agricultural base like the US, especially when you factor in cost of transport. A cheap, secure food supply is why the East Coast and West Coast were able to develop into the financial and entertainment powerhouses they became.
Napoleon had planned that after defeating the rebellion in St Domingue (Haiti) he would create an army of battle experienced black/colored soldiers from the colony and use them as a major part of his military force in a campaign to carve out a North American Empire. The colony (St Domingue/Haiti) would've served as a naval and land base and a source of funding and supplies and colonists. He had already formed an alliance with and had 20,000+ armed Native Americans from the French Territory on standby. His plan was to seize a Gulf port from the US, conquer and colonize Louisiana Territory and expand it westwards to the Pacific using his black, Native American and French armies (and possibly his Legion St Georges aka Black Legion - Europe's first all black regiment made up of free blacks from French American colonies and maybe his Polish Legions). However all those plans fell apart with the devastating loss to the Haitian Revolutionaries and thus the loss of his black army, naval and land base, and supply and funding source, causing him to abandon his dreams of a vast American Empire and sell Louisiana at a bargain price.
Interesting to imagine black Generals and soldiers cutting a swath across North America
10:57 "Austria and new zealand"?
Australia i guess
Wow... lots of great info here and hypothicals to think about. Obviously we would never know how this would play out, but it is fun to speculate. One obvious result of the US not purchasing Louisiana would that was not mention was the War of 1812 probably would not have occurred. Also, it would have likely avoided the Civil War from occurring as well.
Great video!
But you forgot to mention something. Is the large amount of Saint-Domingue (Haïti) « créoles » refugees and their slaves after the haitian revolution in reality it had a big impact on the Louisiana demographics maintaining french language and emerging the french creole that most of the cajun speaks nowdays. Maybe Louisiana would be a creole/french speaking country.
Also “forgot” to note that Haiti caused the fire sale of the Louisiana property. But hey you take a guess why that is omitted in this and textbooks.
Alterhis (French RUclipsr) made a similar scenario about the same topic.
It limits Napoléon s’military wars, he has to be more careful of his wars, cannot sent 100 of thousands of troops , especially not in Russia or Spain , which both extremes located in Eurasia cost him both his troops and his reputation. No invasion of Spain equals no following revolts and revolutions no Brazilian Empire either as the reason was the fear of the Portuguese Royal Family seeing France taking Lisboa and relocating the Portuguese Empire in Rio de Janeiro thus elevating the status of Colony to Kingdom (Kingdom of Brazil)
Napoléon might get killed or imprisoned easily with a smaller army (because no funds of the Louisiana purchase) . The anti-napoleon coalitions still happens and end up winning. The French (traditionalist) Monarchy is restored as the Emperor is deposed. If its a Louis (Louis XVII or XVIII) he would want to restore the prestige of the Royalty and what better way to do it by increasing colonial efforts on the colony that bears your name? That colonization would anger the americans and make them allying with the british. From Louisiana the french might also be able to recapture haiti.
We could see new balances of powers
Hispano-French Alliance:
-The Spanish Viceroyalties
-Louisiana Governorship and maybe some Antilles overseas
Vs
Anglosphere
The French might even give more and more autonomy to the Louisianians and maybe give them full independence by placing a member of the Bourbons as its King or Emperor on Louisiana. I doubt the Spanish territories become independent or if it happens its way later in the future. Regardless, with these territories both the Spanish territories and Louisiana become wealthier by each decade.
I feel like another likely outcome would be having a city state of New Orleans. Like Hong Kong or Singapore.
10:25 Option D, they quietly declare independence by neglect when thing go south for Napoleon, possibly with French approve so as to keep them out of British hands
it'd be cool if france kept a small part of the coast and there would be sth like Giblartar or Hong Kong in the USA
I think the United States would have simply conquered it by force, especially since they were not big fans of Napoleon, who was himself not the most diplomatic of men and would certainly give them a casus belli. That means that the US would become an *ally* of Britain at this time, instead of declaring the War of 1812. Conquering Louisiana would have been very easy given how empty it was, and especially because France was already fighting the entire Europe. So it would have ended exactly in the same way except France wouldn’t have got a dime for it.
The only way for Louisiana to have remained French would be if France managed to negociate a lasting peace with its European neighbours.
With the Napoleonic wars I think the territory would have been split three ways between U.S Britain and Spain
I've been thinking about a related alternate history question: What if Spain never gave Louisiana back to France?
So far, the simplest answer I have is that Louisiana would find itself becoming a part of Mexico and then a part of the United States once American settlers populated the area.
If they hadn't purchased it, they would have walked in and taken it for free. That's why it was sold.
Napoleon should have kept New Orleans and asked US to defend it agaist UK to keep a small territory in a strategical place of North America, and then sell the rest of Louisiana.
I was just imagining the same…..If he only offered/sold the upper territory.
Would be cool to see a video that focused on an independent Cascadia
How would this impact the civil war? By removing the possibility of expansion westward could we see a world where we expand north or south? There would be far reaching consequences of this and it is very interesting. You could almost think of Napoleon as a foreign founding father in a sort for the modern US. Maybe that's too far but he did allow for the US as it is today to come into form by easily allowing expansion and kickstarting our development.
It may have effected slavery since there would be nowhere for the south to expand and African slaves may have a place to escape to.
2023 Good Luck Coach Prime.
Given the strong momentum for westward expansion, I have to believe that Americans would have moved into the territory. Look at Texas. Americans moved in and eventually decided to take it from Mexico.
The impact of a french (independent or not) Louisiana on the World Wars would also be quite considerable.
Continental France would be in a much better position to defend themselves; on the other hand there wouldn't be a strong United States that could dominate the western front.
Germany could have allied with one of the American nations or played on their respective competitions to gain an advantage.
I think it would be reasonable to assume that this period then wouldn't have ended with a total collapse of the German Empire and compromise would have been made.
I feel like the Louisiana country would be very mixed as new Orleans and Louisiana as a whole had lots of mixed people at the time
A French-“Latino” creole country a’ la Haiti? Interesting 🤔.
I guess the modern end result would be based on how the US civil war would have impacted an independent French Louisiana.
At 11:08 ...I'm a Vexillologist and a member of NAVA...the pelican on the Louisiana flag has gone through several designs in it's history...but NEVER has the design emulated the Fleur de Lis...the symbol was that of the mother bird vulning herself (piecing her breast to let her blood feed her children...a symbol of self sacrifice much like that of Christ)...
I live Louisiana !!
I see a different trajectory. The Haitian Revolution would have spread to Louisiana and a strong union between Haiti and Louisiana would have been created. The black population of the Southern US would have had an easy escape route und slavery would have ended much sooner in the US. And of course, the language in Haiti-Louisiana would have been Creole.
The Brits would have NEVER let France take back Qubec. The hard wood for ships masts were a vital strategic resource for the Britsh navy, the same way the US will never let Tiwan go because there forces need the chips. Nether could do it at home.
Likely the future of such a territory, would be fairly similar to Texas. More and more Americans, till bam it's suddenly American.
louisiana is still very much influenced by the french origins. fleur des lis are a very popular community symbol, we’ve got a lot of buildings/families/streets named in French, a small (dying) dialectical french speaking population, and of course lots of other influences from Spain, Caribbean and indigenous.
To be honest, I kinda wish Napolean hadn't sold Louisiana to America, he screwed us over when he did .
Nah not really
on nous dit que N avait vendu la Louisiane pour payer ses soldats!
I’m just a little more upset that Louisiana was carved down to its current meager size and completely left with absolutely zero decent beachfront property. West Florida was a complete travesty and neither Mississippi nor Alabama should have a coastline. After all, wasn’t Mobile the capital of Louisiana originally, followed by Biloxi? 😡🤬
Didn’t France sell Louisiana because they needed money or am I getting this wrong?
France couldn't control Louisiana anymore due to the war on Europe, british blockade in the sea, revolts for independence in Louisiana itself and either the US or UK would take it by force anyway. Knowing that it was just a matter of time in losing it, then Napoleon just sold it instead, and sold to US in order to avoid having it falling into british hands.