Louisiana and Quebec both started off as French colonies with a substantial number of French-speaking settlers. Both came under the rule of English-speaking powers (Quebec became British in 1763 and Louisiana became American in 1803). They both exist in a North American economy in which the incentives to speak English are overwhelming and obvious. But they followed very different paths: Quebec is still predominately French-speaking, while almost no one in Louisiana speaks French as their main language.

The easiest explanation is that Quebec never lost its French-speaking majority, while Louisiana had lost its by around 1850. In turn this explanation relies on (1) Quebec always having had more Francophones than Louisiana and (2) Louisiana being more attractive to Anglophone settlers than Quebec (particularly during the cotton boom of the mid-19th century). So it was more plausible for English-speakers to become a majority in Louisiana.

A third factor was the greater ability of Quebec Francophones to make demands on political authorities -- or at least have those authorities take their wishes into account. So the British steered Loyalist refugees away from Quebec and towards new settlements in what would become Ontario -- which was soon made a separate colony. By contrast, Presidents Jefferson and Madison drew capacious boundaries for Louisiana, which they hoped would ensure that it eventually became Anglophone-majority as new settlers arrived from the United States. The one serious attempt to encourage Quebec Francophones to assimilate -- the creation of "United Canada" in 1840 -- proved wildly unpopular and was abandoned as part of Confederation in 1867. Time and again, Quebec Francophones made it clear that preservation of their language and culture was a priority. And they had the political clout to make that preference stick -- so Quebec has remained French-speaking and Canada has remained bilingual. By contrast, Louisiana entered an already-existing nation where few cared about the status of the French language. Louisiana did have bilingual institutions at the time of statehood in 1812, but those dissipated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The question I have is, "why did Louisiana Francophones not struggle more to maintain the status of the French language?" Losing their linguistic majority explains some of the difference, but not all. New Brunswick has always had an Anglophone majority, but it has a long-standing Francophone minority that shows no signs of disappearing. Conflicts over language are not as central to politics in New Brunswick as they are in Quebec -- but they are important in a way that they are not in Louisiana. Quebec Francophones may have differed in their degree of allegiance to Canada, but they have been united in seeing their distinct identity as something to be preserved, almost at any cost. his struggle has often been the central issue in Quebec politics. By contrast, Louisiana Francophones mostly engaged in "cultural" nationalism without much of a political component. And by the 1920s, the French language had mostly faded from everyday life, outside the most remote corners of Acadiana. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was the "Cajun revival" and the creation of CODOFIL (an organization aimed at reviving French in Louisiana). But by then, the broader battle for French was over. As far as I know, no one ever proposed that Louisiana secede from the union in order to preserve its "distinct society." (White Louisianans were willing to secede to protect slavery, though).

So why were Louisiana Francophones relatively accepting of the decline of the French language in a way that Quebec Francophones absolutely were not? Why wasn't there a political party or movement based on the defense of Francophone Louisiana?