The implications of the U.S. not acquiring the Louisiana Territory

Louisiana. Today Louisiana is a single reasonably sized state in the United States. It's the 31st largest state over 135,000 square kilometers on the southern coast of the U.S. Its capital is Baton Rouge and its biggest city is New Orleans having just over 4.6 million people and it is in its name and also in its flag that we open the doors to the historical predecessor of the American state. Louisiana was named after King Louis XIV of France and what is today the modern state was a part of a much, much larger territory that essentially encompasses one-third, the middle, of the United States' contiguous 48th territory. All of this land, which stretches into 15 of the US states today and even two Canadian provinces, was ruled by the French from 1682 to 1803 with a couple irrelevant pauses in between when Spain actually held control of it for them. Not all the territory was effectively ruled and administered by the French but they claimed it and nobody else did. It was a part of New France, France's North America colonial territory which stretched into Canada too. They lost some of it in 1713 and then the rest, Quebec and Eastern Canada in 1763, in both cases, to the British. After that, all that was left of New France in North America was this, the territory of Louisiana. But they wouldn't hold on to it for much longer, although this time, by choice. 20 years after the Treaty of Paris of 1763, which ended the Seven Years' War, the United States achieved official independence from Great Britain. The Treaty of Paris took place and the American Revolutionary War ended. This treaty and others in the years that followed up to 1800 allowed for the full establishment of US territory on the east coast and then its expansion westwards. All the territories that were ceded by the British to the United States, allowing it to stretch as further south and west as it could being only stopped by Spanish Florida and Louisiana. Florida was ceded by the Spanish to the US in 1819 in a treaty that defined the American border with New Spain, that's not what this video is about, if you want I can make one about it, but what about Louisiana? Like I mentioned before, the French had ceded Louisiana to Spain in 1762. However, now with a new leader, Napoleon, they wanted it back. In 1800, Napoleon, the first consul of the French Republic, regained ownership of Louisiana as part of a broader effort of his to re-establish a French colonial empire in North America. However, France's failure to suppress a revolt in Haiti along with the prospect of a new war with the British prompted Napoleon to give up on this idea and consider selling Louisiana to the US who had previously shown interest in it. After all, their territorial expansion was now blocked and a diplomatic or business deal would always be preferable than another war with a European power. Acquisition of Louisiana had been a long-term goal of President Thomas Jefferson who was especially eager to gain control of the Mississippi River port of New Orleans. The main issue for the Americans was free transit of the Mississippi out to sea, and in fact, their first priority was to acquire the land where the state of Louisiana itself is today, more specifically New Orleans, also named after a French city, assuming the rest could be bought out later. President Jefferson sent two envoys to discuss the purchase of New Orleans, being prepared to offer up to 10 million dollars for the city. However, they were vastly surprised when Napoleon, against the advice of his foreign minister, offered to sell all of the Louisiana territory for a mere $15 million. That's less than 3 cents per acre at the time. Even if you update the values to today, it would amount to only 337 million or 64 cents per acre, unbelievably cheap for this amount of territory. The US envoys obviously accepted and with it more than doubled their country size at the time. Not only also kicking France out of North America for good, but opening the path for expansion westwards and the future control of both the West Coast and other western lands at the time under the control of the Spanish Empire. So what if this hadn't happened? That desire for the US to acquire New Orleans and/or Louisiana could have been there, but what if France hadn't sold it? Assuming that they wouldn't have been able to or wanted to take it by force? What would the territory of Louisiana be today and how would this have impacted both the United States at the time and the Spanish territories to the west of Louisiana? That is, in addition to this initial historical context, the point of this video to answer the hypothetical question, what if the US hadn't bought Louisiana? Before we get into how Louisiana itself would be, it's very interesting to consider the impact on both the United States and their neighbors at the time, New Spain. This article from Prospect Magazine talks about how the US may have collapsed as a new nation without the new space to expand into, being forced to go back to being a British colony. I think even in a hypothetical scenario like this, this is unrealistic. They won the Revolutionary War in a less favorable position than when they consolidated independence. There's no reason why they would fail after, even if with less territory. Unless the French then lost Louisiana to the British through conflict like the lost Canada that could be a different story but for this video's sake let's assume that wouldn't happen so the only question we need to ask is would there be two separate states on either coast or would there be one territorially separated country territorial separation seems insane but then again the US today are territorially separated from one of their greatest territories Alaska if American settlers were allowed to venture into a sovereign Louisiana and cross to the other side then maybe they could still go further west into the territories of at the time New Spain and establish US territories there. Or if they couldn't get across and therefore the two coasts weren't the same country would this have prevented the west from unifying within itself. Proposed independent countries throughout the west coast of the US and Canada were idealized throughout history. Perhaps without direct American expansion into them they they would have still rebelled against the Spanish and then the Mexicans and established their own smaller nations. Who knows, maybe today we could have the Republic of Cascadia, the Independent Republic of California, the Republic of Texas, the Mormon State of Deseret as their own sovereign nations. Although I think in this scenario, the most likely case is that these lands would continue to be ruled by the Spanish and then by the Mexican Empire. Maybe the role of the US would be replaced by Mexico due to this additional territory, becoming a regional superpower and perhaps expanding that power worldwide as the US then ended up doing themselves. It's also interesting to think about the impact this would have on Canada. Like we mentioned, France had lost Quebec and its other Canadian provinces just a few decades earlier. If they hadn't sold Louisiana, Napoleon may have sought to liberate Quebec from British rule. If successful, Louisiana could have stretched up there and the new hypothetical country could be even larger or Quebec and French Canada could have later become independent on their own and we would have an additional French country in North America. And what about the natives? Native Americans in North America saw their destruction in mainly two stages. First, European arrival and colonization and second, US expansion westwards. The consecutive displacement of natives by the US government, the unfair purchasing of lands, the signing of unkept treaties, culminating in the infamous Trail of Tears saw the almost total destruction of Native Americans in the eastern United States. But if Louisiana hadn't become American, perhaps this would have been different. For once, the Trail of Tears couldn't have taken the route it did, as it wouldn't have been their territory. Perhaps the US would have been as brutal on the natives anyway, just finding somewhere else to dislocate them, but maybe they would find a haven in Louisiana and the ones that were already in Louisiana might have been spared this terrible fate. After all, despite not being great, the French tended to be more lenient towards the Native Americans when compared to the British, Spanish, Dutch or Portuguese. Samuel de Champlain, the father of New France was in fact the first to strongly advocate for better relations with the local native tribes, wanting French colonists to live side by side with them as equals. The French actually created a vast network of native alliances spread across North America, establishing themselves as a unifying force through the development of trade networks and transport routes, developing the French language as sort of a lingua franca for the connection of different tribes. Should they have retained control of that territory for longer and should it then have become independent on its own, it's likely that Native Americans would have better conserved their identity, territories, and culture within the new country. Now that we've covered the neighbors, let's think about Louisiana itself. Being initially still a French colony and assuming that wouldn't be viable to last until today, although they do still hold French Canada but this would be a much vaster territory, the Louisiana territory would have to eventually achieve independence. So in what way would they do so? I think there are three options. We could see a scenario similar to the US, where a revolutionary war would be fought by them against the French, achieving full independence in conflict with the former colonizer. We could see a scenario like Canada, where the colonists grant them full independence, but remain connected to them in some manner, sharing for instance a head of state. Or we could see a scenario like what happened with the Spanish colonial empire in America, where independence comes and the territory fragments itself into several nations. I don't think there were enough distinct cultures among the colonists of Louisiana to justify the fragmentation upon independence unless there was a strong native presence and difference among tribes, so let's assume it would be either option A or B with the formation of Louisiana being independent. In this case, perhaps they would like to change their name. If they got their independence from France, it's likely they wouldn't want to remain named after a French monarch. Although if the separation was friendly and independence was granted to them rather than fought for, maybe they would keep it. After all, Napoleon was the one who decided they couldn't afford a North American empire. What if instead of selling it to the US, he instead decided to grant it independence and French support through a military alliance? If they kept the same name, I think it's likely they would at least change the flag. Although, Australia and New Zealand still use the British flag as a canton today, so why not keep the French colony's emblems too in this case? Like I mentioned earlier, even today the flag of the state of Louisiana is a reference to French colonialism. The shape of the bigger pelican's head and the outspread wings covering the three smaller birds form a stylized fleur-de-lis, the French royal symbol used for their colonial flag of the territory. Perhaps another adaptation could be made, keeping the symbol. The spoken language would likely be French, with minority Spanish and English speakers, perhaps along with native languages which would have better endured. In the mid 1720s, Louisiana Native Americans numbered over 35,000, forming a clear majority of the colony's population. I'm sure that this would have changed in time due to the arrival of more colonists, but they would have still remained a significant part of the population. The The new country's territory would therefore be the same as the old French colony, tremendously large and taking control of the lower Mississippi River, an important trade hub for commerce in North America, as well as the basins of the Missouri and Arkansas River. This would likely grant tremendous importance for the new nation. It's likely that its capital would be the city of New Orleans. At 2,140,000 square kilometers, it would be the 13th largest country in the world today, ahead of Mexico and just behind Saudi Arabia. Population wise it's difficult to estimate how big it would be. Even today the areas aren't necessarily the most populated ones in the US, but I believe this is because people settled more on the coasts of the nation due to economic opportunity. Should Louisiana be its own nation this wouldn't come into play as much. I'm sure that the southern area along the coast would still be the most populated growing around the port of New Orleans and perhaps the north would have less people with the rest of the population settling along the rivers. The native majority would have likely gone away. With the establishment of a new nation, I'm sure that there would be a new influx of European colonists from all over the other countries, the same way that it happened with heavy migration to the US in search of better opportunities. In an initial stage too, with it remaining a French colony, I'm sure the French regime would bet heavily on its development, also sending more colonists of their own. Economically, it would probably be a highly developed country today, on par with the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Its important role in trade for North America would definitely be valuable, as well as the key control of the three large river basins. So, that is the answer to the hypothetical question, what if the US hadn't bought Louisiana? Assuming that this would eventually lead to the creation of a new independent nation in North America, dividing what we today know as the US in two or more parts. Understanding how this would likely mean a better fate for Native Americans, the appearance and maintenance of a new culture in North America mixing French and Native heritage. As well as what the impact would be not only for the US, who would definitely not grow into a superpower, but also for the west coast of the country, which would either remain a part of Mexico, perhaps elevating it to a superpower, or fragment into several new independent states like California, Texas, Cascadia and Deseret. In reality, this would always be a highly unlikely scenario. If France hadn't sold it, the US would likely end up taking it by force. Jefferson apparently once said that if they refused to sell, the US would be forced to turn to the British fleet for alliance, perhaps taking Louisiana together with them and splitting it. Even if they didn't, French failure to manage their own colonies and handle rebellions, such as the one in Haiti, proved that success in Louisiana was unlikely. The British alone would probably end up taking it as they did with Canada, although this might result in a limitation of the US too and the establishment of a new nation in the future as well. And what's evident is how unbelievably important this one key moment was for US history and how impactful it was for the history of the world because it effectively allowed the US to further expand its territory and become the superpower they ended up becoming. What do you think? Would you have liked to see this happen? And do you think it was at all possible? Let me know in the comments along with any other cool hypothetical what-if questions throughout history. Thanks so much for watching this video. Subscribe if you want and I will see you next time for more general knowledge.