WI Napoleon didn't sold Louisiana to the USA?

StÃ©phane Dumas · Jun 15, 2004

Hi

I'm a new comer from Canada. I'm sorry for the inconvience if someone had already posted this thread

I wondered what could had happened if Napoleon didn't sold Louisiana to the USA?

David S Poepoe · Jun 15, 2004

From popular opinion is that its likely that Jefferson would have gone to war for it. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

Archangel Michael · Jun 15, 2004

Napoleon had a few choices with Louisiana.

1. Sell it to the United States in 1803
2. If you don't sell it, Jefferson might go to war for it.
3. Sell it when you need the money.

I live in the Louisiana purchase, and I'm glad Napoleon sold it.

Susano · Jun 15, 2004

You wouldve been glad if he hadnt sold it, too...

JLCook · Jun 15, 2004

fourth option: Watch the British grab it!

Mikey said:
Napoleon had a few choices with Louisiana.

1. Sell it to the United States in 1803
2. If you don't sell it, Jefferson might go to war for it.
3. Sell it when you need the money.

I live in the Louisiana purchase, and I'm glad Napoleon sold it.

I think it entirely possible that the British might have invested as smallish army and a Naval force and simply invaded it, at New Orleans, just as they actually tried in 1815!

Such an effort would have irritated the United States immensely, and I think it could have resulted in an American Declaration of war as soon as it happened.

I don't think that this would have occured to Napoleon, I think that Napoleon was pretty sure that Great Britain really MIGHT try to sieze Louisiana. The (temporary) transfer of the territory to Spain was supposed to prevent that from happening, but once Spain became a Napoleonic ally, the "protection" offered by a nominal Spanish ownership vanished.

Since Napoleon could no more hold onto Louisiana than he could Martinique, his really best option was to sell Louisiana, for cash, to The USA. The British couldn't even stop the sale---the transfered funds could be carried to France in a US Navy Warship! Exactly how this was done, I'm not sure, but I do suspect that news of the sale was not well recieved in London!

HARRY · Jun 16, 2004

Strangely enough it was two British banks Barrings and Hope that loaned the the money to the USA government for the Lousianna Purchase. Of cause the money then went to France where Napoleon used it to finance his further military adventures.

Archangel Michael · Jun 16, 2004

HARRY said:
Strangely enough it was two British banks Barrings and Hope that loaned the the money to the USA government for the Lousianna Purchase. Of cause the money then went to France where Napoleon used it to finance his further military adventures.

Ironic, isn't it?

David S Poepoe · Jun 16, 2004

As an aside. WI Napoleon did not sell Louisiana and the British concentrate on seizing New Orleans. I thinking that they reach an agreement with the Americans that there will be a two pronged invasion of Louisiana in general and the complete territory divided between them.

At least until 1812:

1. The British may occupy the city of New Orleans and then it will be Jackson assaulting British entrenched positions.

- or

2. The US insists on receiving New Orleans and sign away any claims to the Oregon Territory and that land of the Louisiana Territory between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains immediately adjacent (basically extend the southern border of Oregon east to the Mississippi encompassing all or most of the states of Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota and Iowa).

Tyr · Jun 16, 2004

Britain would take Louisianna keeping the US contained on the east coast. I think Napoleon would have thought of something to keep the US from invading him- they were the only neutral nation with any capabilities in the atlantic so good for trade.
I think Britain would probally keep it after the war is over also.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jun 16, 2004

Leej said:
Britain would take Louisianna keeping the US contained on the east coast. I think Napoleon would have thought of something to keep the US from invading him- they were the only neutral nation with any capabilities in the atlantic so good for trade.
I think Britain would probally keep it after the war is over also.

I agree - the British would have seized New Orleans, and there is no way we would have been able to eject them.

Faeelin · Jun 16, 2004

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
I agree - the British would have seized New Orleans, and there is no way we would have been able to eject them.

I disagree, actually. I'm sure you're quite shocked.

This could backfire on Britain very badly. Britain has a finite army, after all.

Let's remember that Britain in OTL was sending Wellington to Latin America when Bonaparte invaded Spain. That army was ready by a fortuitous coincedence.

So say Britain takes New Orleans in 1805. America probably goes to war in 1806.

Things go on course in Europe; Britain's hurt by the US privateers, after all, but hey.

Then Boney invades Spain. But this time there's no British army. Bonaparte and the French had subdued insurrections before, and if the British even send troops, they arrive too late. Spain is unruly, but Jerome sits in Madrid.

Privateering, Bonaparte secure as ever.... hmm. How long is it before the jig is up for Britannia?

Of course America's having financial problems as well. New England?

Who wins a war of 1806? France.

DuQuense · Jun 16, 2004

There were already Settlers from the US Crossing the Mississippi and settleing in Lousiana by the 1800-1803 timeframe.

Eventually Lousiana would have become US the same way Tejas did.

David S Poepoe · Jun 16, 2004

Since we haven't considered 1806 as a likely POD I would think that any British investiture of New Orleans would prove very hard for the US to unseat. If they do get it it would be through negotiation and peace treaty.

Tyr · Jun 17, 2004

Why would the US join France against Britain in this war though?
The US was historically allied to France but then hadn't the revolutionarys killed the France the US was allied to?

If for some reason I can't see America does invade -Britain managed to defend Canada in the OTL war of 1812 so I'm sure we could defend Louisianna as well, we could get help from the natives and IIRC Louisianna has some quite good places to defend (aren't the really big rivers there?)

Archangel Michael · Jun 17, 2004

Leej said:
If for some reason I can't see America does invade -Britain managed to defend Canada in the OTL war of 1812 so I'm sure we could defend Louisianna as well, we could get help from the natives and IIRC Louisianna has some quite good places to defend (aren't the really big rivers there?)

Ever here of the Missouri or Mississippi River?

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jun 17, 2004

Fool, I'll crush you.

New Orleans is on an island, and is a port. In order to take it, you'd have to first defeat the RN, then beseige an eminently defensible location and eventually try to storm it. The British were unable to accomplish this even with naval superiority. If the British had it, the could not be dislodged.

Napoleon only gave up Louisiana because he didn't think he could hold it against Britain and it had no value due to the loss of the Carribean territories that it was supposed to support.

Faeelin said:
I disagree, actually. I'm sure you're quite shocked.

This could backfire on Britain very badly. Britain has a finite army, after all.

Let's remember that Britain in OTL was sending Wellington to Latin America when Bonaparte invaded Spain. That army was ready by a fortuitous coincedence.

So say Britain takes New Orleans in 1805. America probably goes to war in 1806.

Things go on course in Europe; Britain's hurt by the US privateers, after all, but hey.

Then Boney invades Spain. But this time there's no British army. Bonaparte and the French had subdued insurrections before, and if the British even send troops, they arrive too late. Spain is unruly, but Jerome sits in Madrid.

Privateering, Bonaparte secure as ever.... hmm. How long is it before the jig is up for Britannia?

Of course America's having financial problems as well. New England?

Who wins a war of 1806? France.

JLCook · Jun 17, 2004

Suppose Great Britain has New Orleans then!

And it's 1806, and they won't leave! The US probably cannot dislodge them. Yet! There would have been a very definate anti-British bias in the US Government for quite some time. Eventually, American population pressures will force a confrontation. The Southern slaveholders , having been deprived of Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri are going to be all for getting the British OUT! Northern Developement into the Ohio valley and into Illinois and Wisconsin will place pretty good sized US populations right there in mid continent, right where it would be hardest for the British to support any claims! After all, The British may have New Orleans and the MOUTH of the Mississsippi, but they don't hold it's eastern bank, so it's going to be very tough using the Mississsipi River as an avenue to project force! I'd say that by the 1860's, instead of a Civil WAr, there would have been a war with Great Britain for control of all, non-hispanic North AMerica, to include Canada! A war that by 1860, the US would win!

Faeelin · Jun 17, 2004

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Fool, I'll crush you.

Sigh... I wish I could say I was surprised by your response, but I've talked to you before.

New Orleans is on an island, and is a port. In order to take it, you'd have to first defeat the RN, then beseige an eminently defensible location and eventually try to storm it. The British were unable to accomplish this even with naval superiority. If the British had it, the could not be dislodged.

Did I ever say it could? I mentioned privateers and the possibility of war elsewhere, namely Canada. Without the american markets, Britain's in trouble.

David S Poepoe · Jun 17, 2004

Just taking a look at a map I think it would be easy, and typical, for the British to limit their conquest of lower Louisiana to the area of New Orleans and the Mississippi Delta seaward. British defensive lines could run from Lake Salvador to Lake Pontchartrain. If the US does like it, and is unsuccessful in dislodging the British, they could develop another port off the Atchafalaya River.

Tyr · Jun 17, 2004

JLCook said:
I'd say that by the 1860's, instead of a Civil WAr, there would have been a war with Great Britain for control of all, non-hispanic North AMerica, to include Canada! A war that by 1860, the US would win!

Britain could have beaten the normal USA around 1860 never mind a USA contained to the 13 colonies (and Florida?).

Talking of Americans in the area causing it to join the US like Texas- won't happen with Britain. There is quite a difference between the free super power of Britain and the rather nasty regional power of Mexico.