What would have happened if Napoleon had kept to his agreement with Spain and refused to sell the Louisiana purchase to America? Would America have just taken it, would there have been a war?
Napoleon refuses to sell Louisiana purchase
- Thread starter El Speculador
- Start date
unprincipled peter
Donor
it would have interesting, for sure. LA was in a bizarre situation. the nominal owner (France) had given up any plans for it. they also hadn't paid the price to Spain for getting hold of it. Meanwhile, Spain was still running the place for the new owner. France wasn't going to fight for it. Spain had limited ability or desire to fight for it.
Would a young nation be so bold as to wage a war of naked aggression to take hold of New Orleans? I think the answer is yes. But, Spain would also lay claim to everything west of the mississippi, and the US would have very limited legal claim to it.
Would a young nation be so bold as to wage a war of naked aggression to take hold of New Orleans? I think the answer is yes. But, Spain would also lay claim to everything west of the mississippi, and the US would have very limited legal claim to it.
TFSmith121
Banned
Consider what's going on in the world;
Consider what's going on in the world; France and Britain are in the middle of a decades-long death struggle over dominance of Europe and the Med. Because of the vastly more effective French army, all of Britain's continental allies had been defeated and forced to come to terms, which leads to the war-weary British begging for such in 1802, which leads to the Treaty of Amiens being signed that March.
The peace lasts for one year, which is how France manages to reach out to the Western Hemisphere for the abortive and very costly Haitian Campaign, which ends in failure by the spring of 1803 (20,000 French troops had died in the space of a year, mostly due to disease; of the total of 55,000 sent to Hispaniola, best estimate is 10,000 ever returned to France); the Anglo-French war begins again in May, 1803, essentally due to British action in seizing French merchant shipping in British waters, beginning May 17.
In the meantime, the Louisiana Purchase treaty had been negotiated and signed in April; the US Senate ratified the treaty over the summer and the US took possesion in October.
There's really no point in the French trying to hold on to Lousiana; they could not deploy sufficient troops to take and hold Hispaniola in "peacetime" (with Britain, that is; certainly not with the Haitians), so trying to hold Lousiana in the middle of war with Britain would be doomed to failure.
In the meantime, they got $15 million in return for title to a territory they couldn't defend and which was barely inhabited, and whose inhabitants had no loyalty to Napoleon or Revolutionary France.
Best,
Consider what's going on in the world; France and Britain are in the middle of a decades-long death struggle over dominance of Europe and the Med. Because of the vastly more effective French army, all of Britain's continental allies had been defeated and forced to come to terms, which leads to the war-weary British begging for such in 1802, which leads to the Treaty of Amiens being signed that March.
The peace lasts for one year, which is how France manages to reach out to the Western Hemisphere for the abortive and very costly Haitian Campaign, which ends in failure by the spring of 1803 (20,000 French troops had died in the space of a year, mostly due to disease; of the total of 55,000 sent to Hispaniola, best estimate is 10,000 ever returned to France); the Anglo-French war begins again in May, 1803, essentally due to British action in seizing French merchant shipping in British waters, beginning May 17.
In the meantime, the Louisiana Purchase treaty had been negotiated and signed in April; the US Senate ratified the treaty over the summer and the US took possesion in October.
There's really no point in the French trying to hold on to Lousiana; they could not deploy sufficient troops to take and hold Hispaniola in "peacetime" (with Britain, that is; certainly not with the Haitians), so trying to hold Lousiana in the middle of war with Britain would be doomed to failure.
In the meantime, they got $15 million in return for title to a territory they couldn't defend and which was barely inhabited, and whose inhabitants had no loyalty to Napoleon or Revolutionary France.
Best,
Last edited:
unprincipled peter
Donor
it does make sense for France to sell it to the US. but that doesn't make for a very good what if. Per terms of the treaty returning LA to France, they were not supposed to sell it to a third party, and Spain was supposed to get Parma. France reneged on both. So WI France actually gave a hoot about keeping its promises?
IF Spain recovered the territory, which they technically never stopped possessing when it was sold out from under them, would they continue to block access to Mississippi, or would they do what they historically did and cater to bigger powers, thereby removing any ostensible reason for the US to attack? I think they cater to US demands for full access. I also think the US would find some sort of bogus reasoning for naked aggression, but remember, their goal was NO. they probably take the river banks, but leave the bulk for new spain. If the US doesn't get too much backlash for being uber bullies, they would then take the rest in round two of naked aggression (OTL mexi-american war). but this would reduce much of the manifest destiny that got amped up by OTL purchase.
IF Spain recovered the territory, which they technically never stopped possessing when it was sold out from under them, would they continue to block access to Mississippi, or would they do what they historically did and cater to bigger powers, thereby removing any ostensible reason for the US to attack? I think they cater to US demands for full access. I also think the US would find some sort of bogus reasoning for naked aggression, but remember, their goal was NO. they probably take the river banks, but leave the bulk for new spain. If the US doesn't get too much backlash for being uber bullies, they would then take the rest in round two of naked aggression (OTL mexi-american war). but this would reduce much of the manifest destiny that got amped up by OTL purchase.
Unless Napoleon can send troops to retain it, and he can't as long as he's at war with Britain, the French possess Louisiana only in theory.
Most likely scenario is that instead of the War of 1812, the US joins the Coalition against Napoleon (perhaps after Jefferson leaves office) and seizes New Orleans and St Louis, and sends a Lewis & Clark type expedition to "conquer" all the way to Oregon. Then at some point, it is officially ceded to the US in a peace treaty.
Most likely scenario is that instead of the War of 1812, the US joins the Coalition against Napoleon (perhaps after Jefferson leaves office) and seizes New Orleans and St Louis, and sends a Lewis & Clark type expedition to "conquer" all the way to Oregon. Then at some point, it is officially ceded to the US in a peace treaty.
Deleted member 93645
If the Bourbons took over earlier through alliance with the British and an unlucky Napoleon, and royalist France paid Spain for Louisiana, then the War of 1812 could get very interesting.
What I think would be interesting would be if France had regained Louisiana from Spain in 1783. France had ceded it to Spain 20 years earlier as compensation for the loss of Florida, and thus theoretically could have asked for it back when Florida was regained by the Spanish.
What would happen to a Louisiana that is French at the time of the Revolution? It could go in a lot of different directions.
What would happen to a Louisiana that is French at the time of the Revolution? It could go in a lot of different directions.
Ultimately, yes they would have. The US NEEDS New Orleans, and more specifically it needs access to the port there. And, well without New Orleans Louisiana of the time was basically worthless (for Europeans at least). So, IMO if France had refused to sell it the United States would have eventually seized it by force, almost certainly with tacit British consent (and probably with Britain bankrolling part of it, do remember the actual purchase was paid for with money borrowed FROM the Bank of England.) In addition, with war between France and Britain either already going again, or being eminent (depending how the butterflies are falling) France quite simply can't defend it, at all.
Well two answers actually. First, France actually did gain quite a bit from the war, including Carribean islands (which were FAR more valuable than Canada) such as Tobago and St. Lucia, and some territory in Africa.
Second, well the US kinda-sorta threw France under a bus. Britain was perfectly happy to give the US generous peace terms to weaken the French/American alliance, and boy did the US jump on that idea. Its a big part of the reason Britain was so generous with territory during the final peace, like giving up virtually all the territory south of the Great Lakes.
TFSmith121
Banned
The Spanish are rapidly going to have other things to worry about, however;
The Spanish are rapidly going to have other things to worry about, however; and its not like they mounted any sort of a fight over Florida, 16 years later.
The bottom line is none of the European powers were well-placed to try and retain control of their Western Hemisphere colonies without the consent of the locals, and pretty much none of them did.
As it was, it took until the middle of the century for the British to come close to anything resembling local self-government in BNA, and that was a "white" colony; and the French, Spanish, and Portuguese were even slower than the British when it came to self-government in their empire.
Colonies that didn't make money weren't worth hanging on to ... and Louisiana, absent settlement, wasn't making any money for France or Spain, and neither European power had the population surplus or policy to encourage immigrants.
A Mississippi Valley where the indigenous population did not suffer the historical demographic crash and yet was "hispanicized" would be interesting, but you're talking butterflies the size of pterodactyls to get there.
By 1600, roughly, that's not even a possibility, and by 1800, with an estimated population of 60,000 "settled" people (probably half of full or partial African ancestry, both free and enslaved) the entire Louisiana Territory had fewer people than that of the smallest US state, Delaware, which had 64,000 people.
Given the demographic differentials, and the realities of European politics in this era, there's no way the French or Spanish could have held on to the Louisiana Territory, even if they'd wanted to...
Best,
The Spanish are rapidly going to have other things to worry about, however; and its not like they mounted any sort of a fight over Florida, 16 years later.
The bottom line is none of the European powers were well-placed to try and retain control of their Western Hemisphere colonies without the consent of the locals, and pretty much none of them did.
As it was, it took until the middle of the century for the British to come close to anything resembling local self-government in BNA, and that was a "white" colony; and the French, Spanish, and Portuguese were even slower than the British when it came to self-government in their empire.
Colonies that didn't make money weren't worth hanging on to ... and Louisiana, absent settlement, wasn't making any money for France or Spain, and neither European power had the population surplus or policy to encourage immigrants.
A Mississippi Valley where the indigenous population did not suffer the historical demographic crash and yet was "hispanicized" would be interesting, but you're talking butterflies the size of pterodactyls to get there.
By 1600, roughly, that's not even a possibility, and by 1800, with an estimated population of 60,000 "settled" people (probably half of full or partial African ancestry, both free and enslaved) the entire Louisiana Territory had fewer people than that of the smallest US state, Delaware, which had 64,000 people.
Given the demographic differentials, and the realities of European politics in this era, there's no way the French or Spanish could have held on to the Louisiana Territory, even if they'd wanted to...
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Actually, there was a $3 million gold downpayment by the US
Actually, there was a $3 million gold down payment by the US and the remainder was handled through Baring's in London and Hope & Co. in Amsterdam; not aware that either was connected with the Bank of England, per se.
Would have been rather short-sighted for the BofE to have been funding what amounted to a transfer of specie to France in 1803.
Best,
Actually, there was a $3 million gold down payment by the US and the remainder was handled through Baring's in London and Hope & Co. in Amsterdam; not aware that either was connected with the Bank of England, per se.
Would have been rather short-sighted for the BofE to have been funding what amounted to a transfer of specie to France in 1803.
Best,
Well, what are you trying to do here? Jefferson's offer was to buy the upper two thirds, if you want France on the continent (even though they're still there with St. Pierre and Miquelon (who know's any of these saints anyways?)).
I suppose you could manage to keep in a few scenarios: Napoleon holds out without the cash and manages to keep his admirable hold over Europe, and eventually the UK.
Second, you would populate Louisiana denser and farther (although there were fur trappers to the the Rockies and settlements up the river to Illinois). This could be done 2, or both ways. First, you could have an expulsion of Québécois à la the Acadiens, although the size of their population and territory would make this difficult. Then, come the French Revolution, you would have devout Catholics fleeing the de-Christianization of France, political opponents, or nobility, or all of them (imagine a Louisiana with hereditary titles) moving to Louisiana.
Of course, that might have France sell them off faster.
I suppose you could manage to keep in a few scenarios: Napoleon holds out without the cash and manages to keep his admirable hold over Europe, and eventually the UK.
Second, you would populate Louisiana denser and farther (although there were fur trappers to the the Rockies and settlements up the river to Illinois). This could be done 2, or both ways. First, you could have an expulsion of Québécois à la the Acadiens, although the size of their population and territory would make this difficult. Then, come the French Revolution, you would have devout Catholics fleeing the de-Christianization of France, political opponents, or nobility, or all of them (imagine a Louisiana with hereditary titles) moving to Louisiana.
Of course, that might have France sell them off faster.
TFSmith121
Banned
Wasn't particularly foresighted by Baring's either, but
Fair enough.
Wasn't particularly foresighted by Baring's either, but: profit!
That's the thing about capitalism and merchant banking; there was always some house (Baring's, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, etc.) willing to fund anything, given a good enough promise of return.
Best,
Fair enough.
Wasn't particularly foresighted by Baring's either, but: profit!
That's the thing about capitalism and merchant banking; there was always some house (Baring's, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, etc.) willing to fund anything, given a good enough promise of return.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
The original US offer was to buy New Orleans
The original US offer was to buy New Orleans and surrounding territory (basically, the historical Orleans District) for ~$10-11 million; Napoleon offered the entire territory for $15 million.
Good deal, but since it cost him nothing to get from the Spanish and he wasn't willing to spend a sou to keep it, it's hard to see any European power not making the offer.
The US got legal title (as such things were measured at the time) from France to a place the French weren't going to spend anything to keep and hadn't spent anything to get... and the French got cold hard cash. Hard to imagine a better deal than that.
Just shows that even Napoleon could read a balance sheet when he needed to...
Best,
The original US offer was to buy New Orleans and surrounding territory (basically, the historical Orleans District) for ~$10-11 million; Napoleon offered the entire territory for $15 million.
Good deal, but since it cost him nothing to get from the Spanish and he wasn't willing to spend a sou to keep it, it's hard to see any European power not making the offer.
The US got legal title (as such things were measured at the time) from France to a place the French weren't going to spend anything to keep and hadn't spent anything to get... and the French got cold hard cash. Hard to imagine a better deal than that.
Just shows that even Napoleon could read a balance sheet when he needed to...
Best,
I don't know. Apart from little disagreements here and there (like the War of 1812 for instance) British and American relations were never really hostile following the ARW. They had disagreements sure, but not full-scale war the way France and Britain had a habit of doing to that time, and the US was either not in a position, or did not have the inclination to challenge British dominance elsewhere in the world the way France did. By taking control of Louisiana the US basically ended any chance France might have had of challenging Britain in NA...and with that money Napoleon was able to continue his one-man quest to unite Europe...out of hatred for him.
TFSmith121
Banned
My point was more that supporting a deal that gave
My point was more that supporting a deal that gave $15 million in cash to Napoleon in 1803 wasn't exactly the best call by a bunch of Englishmen and Scotsmen.
However, I'm sure they made money on the deal, so maybe that was enough.
Best,
My point was more that supporting a deal that gave $15 million in cash to Napoleon in 1803 wasn't exactly the best call by a bunch of Englishmen and Scotsmen.
However, I'm sure they made money on the deal, so maybe that was enough.
Best,