WI: No Louisiana Purchase
- Thread starter idontlikesand
- Start date
the royal navy helps the usa conquer french colonies because....?
not getting louisiana in time would seriously slow down us expansion and endanger its rise to global power.
AussieHawker
Banned
Napoleonic wars. The RN isn't going to let the french through to attack the USA.
Quite. Stopping the French is Priority No. 2 on the British list (after maintaining the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom itself); the First French Empire is undoubtedly Enemy No. 1 for as long as it exists. Everything else—and I do mean everything else—is secondary.
This actually sounds like a recipe for much better Anglo-American relations than IOTL. If the Americans move in on Louisiana (and they will) the British will be very happy to prevent the French from stopping the Americans, purely for the sake of weakening and humiliating the First French Empire. Good Anglo-American relations and poor Franco-American relations…? That sounds like a positive for the Federalists and a negative for the Democratic-Republicans.
How the USA would work if the Federalists won out rather than the Democratic-Republicans, I can't say.
This actually sounds like a recipe for much better Anglo-American relations than IOTL. If the Americans move in on Louisiana (and they will) the British will be very happy to prevent the French from stopping the Americans, purely for the sake of weakening and humiliating the First French Empire. Good Anglo-American relations and poor Franco-American relations…? That sounds like a positive for the Federalists and a negative for the Democratic-Republicans.
How the USA would work if the Federalists won out rather than the Democratic-Republicans, I can't say.
might i remind you all that the usa and great britain had a shooting war during the napoleonic wars? 
and france didnt exit the wars as a broken nation - it was still a world power while the usa was an undermanned immigration destination. the concert of europe was about keeping order in europe, not the rest of the world.
and france didnt exit the wars as a broken nation - it was still a world power while the usa was an undermanned immigration destination. the concert of europe was about keeping order in europe, not the rest of the world.
Saphroneth
Banned
might i remind you all that the usa and great britain had a shooting war during the napoleonic wars?
and france didnt exit the wars as a broken nation - it was still a world power while the usa was an undermanned immigration destination. the concert of europe was about keeping order in europe, not the rest of the world.
Yes, but that was ten years after the Purchase, to a first approximation. No Purchase might butterfly a lot of the reasons for the war.
it certainly wont butterfly away the pressganging of americans into the royal navy or the british support for the amerindians.
Saphroneth
Banned
That's the weird thing, though - the pressganging had actually ended (as a policy, anyway - it took time to disseminate) before the war started.
It's entirely possible that, absent the huge amount of currency Napoleon got from selling the Louisiana territory and which he needed to help prop up his still-shaky rule (by paying his army), the Napoleonic Wars might have ended earlier and pressganging not have become an issue at all.
Similarly, support for the Amerindians is not (or damn well should not) be a casus belli in and of itself - especially if there's all that lovely enemy territory to settle in, ie the Louisiana Territory.
If he hadn't sold it, he would have lost it. So he made a wise decision and made some money off of it. Probably could have gotten a better deal, but in his situation he couldn't push for too much.
As previously stated nothing will stop Americans from migrating in and it was too sweet a plum to resist either taking or adopting after it declares independence.
The only thing holding the Brits from seizing it themselves was a lack of manpower.
As previously stated nothing will stop Americans from migrating in and it was too sweet a plum to resist either taking or adopting after it declares independence.
The only thing holding the Brits from seizing it themselves was a lack of manpower.
How many troops do the French have in Santo Domingo to reinforce Louisiana? Also can't Napoleon simply encourage french emigration to Louisana to counter the american settler presence? Are the british going to interdict civilian transport ships?
I can't picture more Frenchmen being able to get on ships and sail across the Atlantic Ocean than Americans simply walking or riding a horse over to the Mississippi.
The French had a difficult enough time getting people to settle in Lousiana WITHOUT a British blockade and needing ever able bodied man to fight in the Napoleonic Wars. A quick internet search shows the French had some 2600 troops there in 1808, but those were busy fighting the Spanish colonists and trying to hold Santo Domingo for France. They had a lot more during the Haitian Revolution but those were obviously busy so not much help there.
Basically unless they don't try to reinstate slavery in Haiti which might quiet down the Revolution there, they don't have the troops or settlers to outnumber the Americans who are heading west. Even if they tried it would most likely push the U.S. and Britain closer together. Despite the issues between the two if meant getting all that land to the west the U.S. would be a lot more willing to work with the U.K. and hammer out their problems diplomatically.
Or the U.S. would just keep neutral until France was distracted in Europe and take it anyway.
Basically unless they don't try to reinstate slavery in Haiti which might quiet down the Revolution there, they don't have the troops or settlers to outnumber the Americans who are heading west. Even if they tried it would most likely push the U.S. and Britain closer together. Despite the issues between the two if meant getting all that land to the west the U.S. would be a lot more willing to work with the U.K. and hammer out their problems diplomatically.
Or the U.S. would just keep neutral until France was distracted in Europe and take it anyway.
Wont work. Jefferson wanted originally to buy New-Orleans area to be able to ship the mid-west goods trough the Mississippi and by N-Orleans port to world trade. He only buy the rest of Louisiana because Napoleon offer it for a really good price.
the US bought the whole thing, because it was pretty much an 'all or nothing' offer, and the US really wanted New Orleans. If Napoleon refused to sell it... I'd imagine the USA would look on disgruntled until word of Napoleon's first abdication came along... and then they'd muster whatever they could and try to capture the town. The rest of the territory wasn't seen as desirable at all, although the US would want all the land west to the Mississippi River, just to have a clear right of passage all the way down it. Later on... who knows? One big question is if the USA takes all of LA east of the Mississippi, and doesn't really claim anything west of the river, who does claim it?
TFSmith121
Banned
So did Revolutionary France and the US...
So did Revolutionary France and the US... that didn't lead to legions of Old Guards marching in the streets of Boston, did it?
Best,
might i remind you all that the usa and great britain had a shooting war during the napoleonic wars?
and france didnt exit the wars as a broken nation - it was still a world power while the usa was an undermanned immigration destination. the concert of europe was about keeping order in europe, not the rest of the world.
So did Revolutionary France and the US... that didn't lead to legions of Old Guards marching in the streets of Boston, did it?
Best,