No Louisiana purchase

[NomadicSky]

What if napoleon just leased the city of New Orleans to the United States for 20 years rather than sell all of Louisiana to the United States

[Chingo360]

Obviously it would set a limit for expansion for the US since it will give the spanish more time to claim the west

[Kidblast]

Would France retain New Orleans after Napoleon was deposed?

[chunkeymonkey13q]

We'd invade and take it over anyway and not necessarily using the military.

[Matt]

We'd invade and take it over anyway and not necessarily using the military.


I concur. America is likely to expand west, and noone has substanstal numbers inside the purchase to validify a claim. American settlers drift westards, and once the population reaches a critical point something like OTL fillibusters occurs. Because of the longer times involved it possible that no War with Mexico occurs, thus America spreads to the north and west, absorbing all of Oregon Territory.

[Chingo360]

Maybe we would expand more north, since i doubt we are gonna go through French and Spanish territory to get to the Pacficic. Maybe the US would be from the Gulf to Hudson Bay, we cant go to far east in modern-day Canada since the French are there too, but once we reach the Hudson area, we are free to go west anyway. The land is still fairly fertile in Sasketchawan and all those other provinces. The region is generally the same compared to the US region below it though not as warm. Seems like several nations will be created if the US does not get the Louisiana purchase, maybe a Quebec State? Or what happens if someone else purchases the Louisiana territory, which doesnt seem all that unlikely since the french really wanted to get rid of it.


YES POST NUMBER 1000, I MADE IT!!!!

[drewmc2001]

Maybe we would expand more north, since i doubt we are gonna go through French and Spanish territory to get to the Pacficic.

Why? Who would stop the US from going through their territory to the pacific (specifically thinking of the time period before 1815) Europe was embroiled in the Napoleonic war, and couldn't have stopped it even if they wanted to...
But perhaps you were referring to the broader scope of 19th century history.

Play with this idea... One thing that made America isolated was the fact that we really didn't have to share our continent with a European power - yeah, yeah I didn't forget about Canada - but the War of 1812 left a bad taste in our mouth over a bunch of frozen canucks... the great plains has the potential to be a totally different matter 1) no entrenched european settlers to fight 2) a great distance away from Europe - Most of the Canadian population was located fairly close to the St. Lawrence Seaway in the early 19th century. 3) Manafest Destiny ... There are more reasons that come to mind, but those suffice...

I'm not saying that the US could annex the midwest as if it acted in a vacuum. Obviously if France were bound and determined to keep it, it could make it problematic... but one other prospect is that France would offer to sell it in the 1820s or 1830s just to avoid a war with a distant trade partner. Remember that France after Napoleon was ill equipped to fight a foreign war - there was a great deal of social unrest in that country throughout the 19th century.

[Nicole]

I don't see why Chingo thinks that we can conquer Canada without the extra resources of Lousiana when we failed to take it with Louisiana.

I think we'd be likely to get it anyway eventually- American settlers will still go to the territory, and eventually you have a Texas situation...

[chunkeymonkey13q]

If the settlers take Louisiana and the territories further west from the French and Spanish, they might very well attempt the same thing in Canada and Mexico, although with this they may not be successful.

[Nicole]

If the settlers take Louisiana and the territories further west from the French and Spanish, they might very well attempt the same thing in Canada and Mexico, although with this they may not be successful.
Hm? There were American settlers in Canada, but in OTL areas like Texas were closer to the population base of the US where the settlers were coming from, so they got many more settlers.

[chunkeymonkey13q]

I meant that they might eventually try to join the United States in those countries, although they might not be successful in doing so.

[King Gorilla]

The US would ally with Britain at the first available opportunity and conquer it. New Orleans was of immense strategic value to the young american nation and it would be willing to do whatever was necessary inorder secure possession of it.

[chunkeymonkey13q]

Either way we would have gotten it and the French and Spanish really couldn't have done anything about it.

[Nicole]

The US would ally with Britain at the first available opportunity and conquer it. New Orleans was of immense strategic value to the young american nation and it would be willing to do whatever was necessary inorder secure possession of it.
This seems likely to me- the War of 1812 is most likely replaced with an Anglo-American alliance in the Americas to expel the French- Britain takes the Carribean islands and those little islands near Newfoundland, the US takes Louisiana- there might be an expansion into Spanish territory, I don't know which side the Viceroy of New Spain supported.

[Wendell]

This is a POD with huge potential. The U.S. coulvd get areas north of the Missouri River, but not the rest...

[rem1967]

Maybe in that case Napoleon III might have sold the rest to finance the Franco-Prussian War?

[JEDCJT]

Then we have a smaller USA than today's TL. :rolleyes:

[HARRY]

How would this effect Napoleon without the money from the Lousianna purchase would be stick with the peace treaty with Britain. Could he afford to try and invade Russia, it may even save his empire in the long run if peace last long enough to stablize the French/British trade relationship.

[Tyr]

I'd imagine the US allying itself with Britain and conquering it anyway.
Which could have interesting knock on effects with no victory in 1812 for the Canadians leaving them without their firm national identity.

You know, this could be the best POD for those silly US conquers the world scenarios.

[chunkeymonkey13q]

We couldn't stop the colonists from settling there and neither could the rulers of that region. It would ultimately still become part of the United States, it would just take longer.

[Wendell]

We couldn't stop the colonists from settling there and neither could the rulers of that region. It would ultimately still become part of the United States, it would just take longer.
The southern part might not...

[kazin]

then the USA would have 50 states, and no pussy state named after a french monarch

[chunkeymonkey13q]

I disagree, if the population of United States colonists became so high that there were far more of them than anyone else, it's not unlikely that the area would then become part of the United States.

[Andrei]

Wouldn't the British have conquered at least New Orleans if the US hadn't bought Louisiana ?
I think one of the reasons Napoleon sold Louisiana in 1803 was that he couldn't defend it from Britain

[Matt]

Wouldn't the British have conquered at least New Orleans if the US hadn't bought Louisiana ?
I think one of the reasons Napoleon sold Louisiana in 1803 was that he couldn't defend it from Britain


In 1803 Britain's resources were being streched by the Wars. I do think they had the resources immidiatly available to mount an operation against it. And striking at the perphial of the French Empire would really not have much effect against the main show.

I think Nappy sold it to help finance his war.

[Tyr]

Yup.
That would be the main effect of this, the US really doesn't matter in the context of world history at this time. The effect of Napoleon not having all that extra British money though...
Britain wouldn't be straining ourselves in wars against him, things could end very fast.

[hewhocaves]

might the british enlist our support against france with the promise of Lousiana in exchange?
no war of 1812 then.

[hewhocaves]

on the other hand, if england enlists our support and there is significant french sympathy in the south (or the north - i.e. regionally) the country is still new enough to warrant a split over the issue. Civil war in 1810 anyone?

[Grimm Reaper]

The probable outcome is an Anglo-American alliance. Jefferson even felt out the British, in the event the French were not amenable and they were very keen on the idea.

British benefits:

1) No war with the US, saving many merchant ships and a substantial number of warships and troops. Troops and ships in perfect condition in Canada are still not free for the main event.

2) Possible US aid and support against Napoleon. A few of the super-frigates and an expeditionary force of 10,000 men can't hurt.

3) All payment to the US coming out of France's hide. Always a good thing to the British.

US benefits:

1) No War of 1812.

2) Goodwill and open association with the only nation which could actually harm the US.

3) The entire territory without paying for it.

[Wendell]

then the USA would have 50 states, and no pussy state named after a french monarch
You love the French, don't you?:rolleyes:

[Wendell]

The probable outcome is an Anglo-American alliance. Jefferson even felt out the British, in the event the French were not amenable and they were very keen on the idea.

British benefits:

1) No war with the US, saving many merchant ships and a substantial number of warships and troops. Troops and ships in perfect condition in Canada are still not free for the main event.

2) Possible US aid and support against Napoleon. A few of the super-frigates and an expeditionary force of 10,000 men can't hurt.

3) All payment to the US coming out of France's hide. Always a good thing to the British.

US benefits:

1) No War of 1812.

2) Goodwill and open association with the only nation which could actually harm the US.

3) The entire territory without paying for it.
If the U.S. made such an alliance with Britain, then might the Americans get the other French colonies in the Western Hemisphere as well?

[wkwillis]

Napoleon wrote that his attack on Haiti was a mistake. So he sells it to Haiti in return for sugar and ship timber? And lots and lots of runaway slaves show up?