AH Challenge: Louisiana War of 1804

This is probably a common one, but I'd like to know what your views are on the possible outcomes of a Franco-American War in 1804 over control of the Louisiana Territory, because of Napoleon's decision to keep control of the Territory.

Got to be honest...as much as I've studied the War of 1812, I have no idea who would be where at this point. It's long enough after the Revolution that those troops wuld more or less be retired, but most of the soldiers we know of from the War of 1812 wouldn't have matured by then. Andrew Jackson would have, but Winfield Scott was still very young.

Thoughts?

WOW!

Would you like to say that Napoleon would have been interested in what occurs out of Europe?
Frankly, it is all the history of the planet which would have changed.

It would have to take troops in Europe, therefore to consider its conquests differently. Probably an alliance between England and the USA.

It is even probable that that would have pushed it to pay more attention to the navy. The missed attenpt to conquer England does not put place.
And Villeneuve don't pushed to lose at Trafalgar (Nelson is not good for catch ennemies).

Two possibilities :

1° Napoleon give up. Really, it's go for a big change in the XX century.

2° Napoleon go to war and England allie with USA.

- Probably no russian invasion.
- Big efforts on the fleet.
- Lose, in a first time, of louisiana and Texas, but England pick a lot of territories for Canada. Today, USA lack of a lot of states in the in the North and North-west.
- If Napoleon can send a lot of troops in America (mexico ?), i don't see USA stand up. Only english troops can, and i don't know if England can send one of the few good generals they have (France don't have this problem).

Probably big changes in XX century (at this era, The USA are already seen like unreliable allies by french. Imagine with this attack. And imagine if USA is successfull...).
If Napoleon win, he's probably in better position in Europe. I see another History Divergeance : If, with this new territory, the possibilitie to build a new fleet here, and the invasion to Russia nullified or pushed latter, Napoleon can win or stalemate England, well, we can have French Stardestroyers at the XXX centurie
If not, maybe USA and England can retake the lost territories in America. If yes, USA take Louisiana (well, they have no right on, and traities say "France at her pre-war borders, i think) ? England jump on and pick a lot of territories in the actual USA ?


3° Napoleon go to war and England don't allie with USA (unlikely, for me).
- Maybe no russian invasion, or maybe latter.
- USA probably crushed. They don't have the sheer power, they don't have the good generals, they don't have the industrial base, they don't have the population, they don't have the experienced soldiers Napoleon have.

Probably big changes in the XXe century, too.

Well, Napoleon was interested in keeping Haiti, which is out of Europe.

He'd have to win in Haiti, then he could think about keeping Louisiana too.

Jefferson and Madison were rather pro-French, so maybe you have to keep the Federalists at power.

For haiti : Well, it's more a counter-rebellion of slaves and the english answered before the frenchs. After the second rebellion, Napoleon give up (in 1805).

It was my thought that the most possible happening for this would be that the French Army somehow put down the rebellion in Haiti, then landed the troops in New Orleans afterwards, as were their plans.

This would put a French army on the American border. I think that the US wouldn't be happy about it, and yes, you are right: it would probably result in an Anglo-American alliance.

But can anyone think of any personalities that would have been involved? As I said before, this was Andrew Jackson's time. In 1805, he was switching from a being a judge to command of the eastern-Tennessee militia, which he used to great effect in 1812.

I don't believe the French honestly could have won this war. A French army would have been a force to reckon with, true, but if the Royal Navy clamped down hard, the French could not be reenforced. This makes it sound like I'm advocating a war of a few months. I'm not.

I would wonder, though, if the Americans would try and straddle the line, fighting the French while telling the British to stay out. Conceivably, if they didn't ask for any help, the British wouldn't give it. I could see the Royal forces getting frisky in the Great Lakes, though.

Thoughts?

How about going the other way? Napoleon proposes a joint colonisation of the territory, financed by the Haiti plantations, settled by French and Americans together. The two great freedom-loving Empires settling a third.

The pro-French Americans might like this idea. It might get additional impetus if the British oppose it, as they almost certainly would since it threatens Canada. The Americans would definitely object to British high-handedness, the anti-British faction probably being led by the young firebrand Andrew Jackson, who had lost a brother and been mistreated by the British himself in the Revolution.

So we get a war of British vs America and France.

I honestly can't say who would win. The British might be able to prevent France from reinforcing, but before the war starts France might be able to double their forces here. And they now have the addition of American support. On land, that's probably the equivalent of 30000 more troops (it would actually be more, but the quality of American troops varied widely) At sea, it's the beginnings of a the only Navy to give the British serious worries in over a hundred years, eight years later in OTL.

Oh, if only Washington was alive, Napoleon, Washington and Jackson, all together at the Battle of the Missouri Breaks

NapoleonXIV said:

How about going the other way? Napoleon proposes a joint colonisation of the territory, financed by the Haiti plantations, settled by French and Americans together. The two great freedom-loving Empires settling a third.

The pro-French Americans might like this idea. It might get additional impetus if the British oppose it, as they almost certainly would since it threatens Canada. The Americans would definitely object to British high-handedness, the anti-British faction probably being led by the young firebrand Andrew Jackson, who had lost a brother and been mistreated by the British himself in the Revolution.

So we get a war of British vs America and France.

I honestly can't say who would win. The British might be able to prevent France from reinforcing, but before the war starts France might be able to double their forces here. And they now have the addition of American support. On land, that's probably the equivalent of 30000 more troops (it would actually be more, but the quality of American troops varied widely) At sea, it's the beginnings of a the only Navy to give the British serious worries in over a hundred years, eight years later in OTL.

Oh, if only Washington was alive, Napoleon, Washington and Jackson, all together at the Battle of the Missouri Breaks

Click to expand...

Lets see "The two great freedom-loving Empires settling a third." With luck they probably get splattered by the other great freedom-loving empire.

The French would as you say have difficulty reinforcing their armies in the Americas. They would, even more than the British during the ARW, find out the logistical problems of maintaining an army thousands of miles away from home. Also, since their system was so dependent on foraging [or plunder if you prefer] where are they going to operate and how. Most of N America is too poor and thinly populated to support even a conventional army for any length of time and their relations with the US will sour quickly if they spend much time in the states.

There is an even bigger problem in that I think your suggesting Boney himself will be operating in N America. He was very lucky to get out of Egypt and given the nature of the French empire he could not afford to spend long out of touch with Paris and his power-base. If a coup sees someone take over, or a new coalition crushes it while he is absent his army is not going to be worth very much. [While he had some very capable sub-ordinates he was not willing to trust them very far while others were highly unreliable and he knew it].

The US navy would pose little threat in this scenario. It won some victories in 1812 because an over-stretched RN had got complaisant and thought it could win victories against the odds, resulting in some sharp setbacks. However if the French are in force in the region the RN is going to be there in spades. By this time the French and Spanish fleets, while large in size, are poor quality and they will be crushed when they give battle. This is probably even more likely in this scenario as they will have to try and supply the emperor and his new offensive. Once that is done Britain can simply swamp the US ports and throttle its trade while awaiting the collapse of the French empire.

Basically I think such a scenario would be playing right to British strengths.

Steve

Steve: I suppose I probably should have made a better outline of what I was considering. In my mind, the most likely French army would be the one that went into Haiti, put it down, then shipped to New Orleans. That would mean that the commander of that Army, which I believe was Napoleon's brother, would be the chief French officer on the scene. My assumption was that Napoleon would undoubtedly stay in Paris. I apologize for the mixup in the initial parameters of the WI.

I believe that had a war between Franch-American forces and British forces would have resulted in a fortified Lousiana that would end up in the hands of the Americans one way or the other, either through post-War treaty negotiations resulting in a Lousiana Purchase, or through a second war. The Americans would've taken the Territory if they couldn't have bought it.

MacCaulay said:

Steve: I suppose I probably should have made a better outline of what I was considering. In my mind, the most likely French army would be the one that went into Haiti, put it down, then shipped to New Orleans. That would mean that the commander of that Army, which I believe was Napoleon's brother, would be the chief French officer on the scene. My assumption was that Napoleon would undoubtedly stay in Paris. I apologize for the mixup in the initial parameters of the WI.

I believe that had a war between Franch-American forces and British forces would have resulted in a fortified Lousiana that would end up in the hands of the Americans one way or the other, either through post-War treaty negotiations resulting in a Lousiana Purchase, or through a second war. The Americans would've taken the Territory if they couldn't have bought it.

Click to expand...

MacCaulay

OK. That would fit in more. A basically defencive strategy would make the war a lot longer and most costly for Britain to make any major gains. Although also costlier for everybody else and the US probably wouldn't be happy about a prolonged blockage cutting off their maritime commerce.

It was sounding more like an aggressive Franco-US alliance to attack Canada was being discussed. That would place a much higher burden on both France and the US, hence my doubt on its probability.

Steve

Steve: Yeah. I think we were arguing at crosspurposes, there. My initial feeling was how a war would progress between the French and Americans. I really wasn't thinking of the British having anything to do with it. More of a...straddling-type of foreign policy, with the Americans saying to the British: "We'll fight the French, but we're not fighting them with YOU."

In my mind, that would be the only way the Americans could hope to take the whole Lousiana Territory. If they went in with the British as well, you'd have an increased Royal prescence in the upper Mississippi Valley, which would not be the best interests of the Americans.

If I was running British foreign policy I would allow the French to move as many troops over there as they wanted, once they have roughed up the US and wasted a lot of French and American lives I would blockade them and let the Americans kill them.

Meanwhile Europe has less French soldiers about and the Americans are to busy to look at Canada, win win.

just my two cents, but it would also really accelerate military tactics. Native Americans would be drawn in, and the American colonials had already shown a flair for guerilla tactics.

Rather than the Civil War being the revolution in military tactics, it might very well happen in this conflict. Hastily built up positions, less concern for European chivalric(?) ways of fighting battles.

As far as French foraging, I think they would do fine, as long as they had bullets, cannon balls, and powder. They'd find plenty of food, as long as they didn't totally disillusion the natives.

France joined with the US, might have really put a hurting on the British, who still preferred to fight major engagements, in the same old ways.

I came back to this thread more out of suprise that I saw it again. But I'm glad I did. Does anyone know if there is viable information on fortifications in an around the Mississippi Valley in the early 1800s? I need to know how the Americans would have attacked the Lousiana Territory.

My own idea would be for them to send in two armies: one to cross the Mississippi around Rock Island, Illinois, and go north to secure the northern part of the territory (this would be the smaller army) and a second to cross the Mississippi somewhere south of Tennessee to attack the main French forces.

Thoughts?

Well, if the Yankees are fighting Nappy, then he will be sending armies with commanders to the New World. This will limit his war to a degree in Europe. Imagine James Monroe representing the Americans at Vienna. Might the Yankees turn their war with France into an alliance with Britain, perhaps having Canada being traded to the Americans?

Wendell: Good call. I've run the ole 'America gets Canada' through the noggin, and bounced it off a Canadian History professor a few times. It's one of those things that was perfectly logical then that doesn't seem logical now. The Louisiana Territory, for all intents and purposes, never really had a northern boundary. It was just...up there. The US and Canada agreed on the 49th Parallel later.

Though...and I can't believe I forgot this...but there was an American squadron, complete with Marines, that was in the Mediterranean at about that time. They'd just landed in Tripoli. I wonder what difference that might have made?

Thoughts?

MacCaulay said:

Wendell: Good call. I've run the ole 'America gets Canada' through the noggin, and bounced it off a Canadian History professor a few times. It's one of those things that was perfectly logical then that doesn't seem logical now. The Louisiana Territory, for all intents and purposes, never really had a northern boundary. It was just...up there. The US and Canada agreed on the 49th Parallel later.

Though...and I can't believe I forgot this...but there was an American squadron, complete with Marines, that was in the Mediterranean at about that time. They'd just landed in Tripoli. I wonder what difference that might have made?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Well, the Yankees were fighting Barbary pirates, but, if word got around in time, Americans could actually fight in France itself, or, maybe try and occupy Corsica?

Wendell: That was my initial thought, as well. Though now I'm wondering if they wouldn't work a bit better as raiders against France's colonial holdings. Maybe find the crown jewel of the French colonies (whatever that was) and land on it just long enough to put a scare into them. Of course...it would be quite a propaganda coup if the Americans were to raid Marseille on the southern coast or La Rochelle in the west.

MacCaulay said:

Wendell: That was my initial thought, as well. Though now I'm wondering if they wouldn't work a bit better as raiders against France's colonial holdings. Maybe find the crown jewel of the French colonies (whatever that was) and land on it just long enough to put a scare into them. Of course...it would be quite a propaganda coup if the Americans were to raid Marseille on the southern coast or La Rochelle in the west.

Click to expand...

Well, that would give new significance to La Marseillaise

Seriously though, that island idea is a good one. The Americans will surely benefit at the peace table with those under military occupation.

Wendell: You're on to something there. I'm liking this. I'm still wondering, though, if an American expedition into the northern part of the Territory (Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota) might not be undertaken in a smarter way if they just walked through, acting like they owned the place.

"Hey, Indians. We're the new White Father, now. The old ones traded in their rights." That might eleminate alot of fighting they'd need to do. And lord knows the Americans would need all the Indian fighters then could get down in the South during a war in the early 1800s.

Thoughts? By the way, good give and take.

MacCaulay said:

Wendell: You're on to something there. I'm liking this. I'm still wondering, though, if an American expedition into the northern part of the Territory (Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota) might not be undertaken in a smarter way if they just walked through, acting like they owned the place.

"Hey, Indians. We're the new White Father, now. The old ones traded in their rights." That might eleminate alot of fighting they'd need to do. And lord knows the Americans would need all the Indian fighters then could get down in the South during a war in the early 1800s.

Thoughts? By the way, good give and take.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd like to see William Clark end up as POTUS at some point. Maybe Andrew Jackson is killed along the way?