*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.
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
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.
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
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
Fun discussion. Please remember that France still "owns" part of North America, albeit a tiny part: The overseas collectivity of "Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon."
@@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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
I was born and raised in Louisiana and this is very fascinating. Never once did I think of a scenario like this. There was always a quick history lesson on the purchase, but never any full details about Napoleon and Thomas Jefferson or hypothetical scenarios of France keeping Louisiana or it becoming it's own thing. There was also never any mentioned of how Native Americans were impacted by the purchase in our history lessons. Looking at the outline of the territory, they would have still held on to some important cities that are within the state today (plus my hometown, lol). This was a really cool video and I would love to see more! Alternative/what if history is truly a fascinating learning experience!
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.
I don't think the West would have become the US at all. I think that it would have gotten its independence from Mexico and be a Spanish speaking country today, a French speaking country in the middle and the US in the East. The US today could easily hold 3 different countries with room to spare. Each country has access to an ocean/gulf for trade purposes, ports, agricultural area and all could well be self-sustaining. Lordy, look at Europe it has way more than 3 countries in a smaller or same size as the current US. Since the US is so big, it might actually have been a better solution than all being the US and Canada. Canada would probably have been 2 countries and English and a French speaking one. The US wouldn't have been as big and probably not gotten in 2 wars thereby the two hemispheres probably would be very connected to this day. This country is so big--too big. I'm born a raised in California and have been East twice in my life-Florida and NY. I've never been to the midwest and rarely east of Denver.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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
@pdwhudson1Jamaica is not and has never been Spanish speaking. The two largest Black Caribbean countries are not. The only two not considered “latino”. 🤔
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
If the u.s. never purchased Louisiana they would've taken it America was going to expand regardless of permission of other nations just like the south west was taken Louisiana would be taken
Mormonism would have died off quickly. There traveled west to avoid persecution. Deserette was a Mormon name So that area wouldn’t be called that. I suspect it would have retained its native name.
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 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? 😡🤬
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.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
*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.
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?
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.
Yes, make a video about New Spain too!
Sure!
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
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?
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 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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
As à French canadien I certainly wishes it happened, but knowing history I know it was impossible.
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 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.
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.
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
then Americans would have to ask "monsieur une baguette, merci"
et aussi faire régulièrement la "révolution"!
“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.
10:56: AUSTRIA and New Zealand?
It was problably a tongue slip
Definitely a mistake!
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. 😁
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.
0:10 the "L" in Louisiana now makes sense! 🤔
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.
Hello there
General kenobi
Roblox
@@maxivanzu8228 you ARE a bold one
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.
Very good thoughts!
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.
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
Great video as always.
Thank you!
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
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.
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
Mistake at the start. If Louisiana is the 31st largest state then it's the 20th smallest (of 50) NOT 19th!
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 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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
I was born and raised in Louisiana and this is very fascinating. Never once did I think of a scenario like this. There was always a quick history lesson on the purchase, but never any full details about Napoleon and Thomas Jefferson or hypothetical scenarios of France keeping Louisiana or it becoming it's own thing. There was also never any mentioned of how Native Americans were impacted by the purchase in our history lessons. Looking at the outline of the territory, they would have still held on to some important cities that are within the state today (plus my hometown, lol). This was a really cool video and I would love to see more! Alternative/what if history is truly a fascinating learning experience!
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
I don't think the West would have become the US at all. I think that it would have gotten its independence from Mexico and be a Spanish speaking country today, a French speaking country in the middle and the US in the East. The US today could easily hold 3 different countries with room to spare. Each country has access to an ocean/gulf for trade purposes, ports, agricultural area and all could well be self-sustaining. Lordy, look at Europe it has way more than 3 countries in a smaller or same size as the current US. Since the US is so big, it might actually have been a better solution than all being the US and Canada. Canada would probably have been 2 countries and English and a French speaking one. The US wouldn't have been as big and probably not gotten in 2 wars thereby the two hemispheres probably would be very connected to this day. This country is so big--too big. I'm born a raised in California and have been East twice in my life-Florida and NY. I've never been to the midwest and rarely east of Denver.
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)
Great Video 🎞
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)
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.
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.
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
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”. 🤔
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.
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 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.
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 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
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.
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?
The mexico has larger territory today up to california and texas
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.
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
Why did Nepolian fight all those wars to gain land in Europe and Asia just to loose a huge chunk of North America?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
@@gamermapper the only reason for that was bc they didnt have enough settlers and what France used their colonies for
Please do a video about Florida!!
31st largest means 20th smallest - since there are 50 states, the 2 numbers must add up to 51.
2023 Good Luck Coach Prime.
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.
10:57 "Austria and new zealand"?
Australia i guess
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.
They bought Lousiana but they never pay!
I feel like another likely outcome would be having a city state of New Orleans. Like Hong Kong or Singapore.
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
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.
Likely the future of such a territory, would be fairly similar to Texas. More and more Americans, till bam it's suddenly American.
Its most likely that american settlers would have moved in to New France territory and a situation similar to Texas would have occurred.
Would be cool to see a video that focused on an independent Cascadia
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?
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.
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.
9:30 Gotta get that "Indepence"
If they hadn't purchased it, they would have walked in and taken it for free. That's why it was sold.
If the u.s. never purchased Louisiana they would've taken it America was going to expand regardless of permission of other nations just like the south west was taken Louisiana would be taken
Mormonism would have died off quickly. There traveled west to avoid persecution. Deserette was a Mormon name So that area wouldn’t be called that. I suspect it would have retained its native name.
Maybe there is a paralel dimension when this happened.
I live Louisiana !!
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.
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? 😡🤬
great again
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.