WI: No Louisiana Purchase

Devvy · May 23, 2011

Don't worry...I have managed to use the search function to check other threads

- What do you think would have happened if the House of Representatives had voted to deny the request to purchase the land? Would Britain have seized the whole territory during the Napoleanic wars, or possibly as loot in the aftermath?
- Would a successful "request denied" have set a precedent for no expansion of the USA, or would public mood still change and favour the annexing of...say Florida. Or invasion into possibly British Louisiana?
- Do you think the CSA would still of broken away? Would they have a better chance of success?

Just interested to hear opinions while I moot a new TL along these lines.

Swan Station · May 23, 2011

Devvy said:
- What do you think would have happened if the House of Representatives had voted to deny the request to purchase the land? Would Britain have seized the whole territory during the Napoleanic wars, or possibly as loot in the aftermath?

Or would it have simply been transferred back to Spain after Napolean falls?

Dave Howery · May 23, 2011

no matter who ends up with the whole big LA territory, the USA will be pressuring them to sell New Orleans... they really wanted that city...

Helltanz98 · May 23, 2011

America would have taken the land anyway France couldn't hold it

Devvy · May 23, 2011

Dave Howery said:
no matter who ends up with the whole big LA territory, the USA will be pressuring them to sell New Orleans... they really wanted that city...

Helltanz98 said:
America would have taken the land anyway France couldn't hold it

I don't pretend to be an expert in American affairs (hence the thread!), but if the US House of Reps passed a vote denying the request as it almost did in OTL, would the US still be able to take/purchase/conquer any of the land?

wolf_brother · May 23, 2011

Helltanz98 said:
America would have taken the land anyway France couldn't hold it

Nobody could hold it. Perhaps Britain, Spain, and/or France manages to retain some of the choicer bits around the edges, but the US was the only power in the region who had the population, position and will power to exploit the area. The majority of the purchase is going to fall to the US with a POD as late as 1803, anything else is simply ASB.

Mikestone8 · May 24, 2011

wolf_brother said:
Nobody could hold it. Perhaps Britain, Spain, and/or France manages to retain some of the choicer bits around the edges, but the US was the only power in the region who had the population, position and will power to exploit the area. The majority of the purchase is going to fall to the US with a POD as late as 1803, anything else is simply ASB.

The US will certainly get New Orleans, and eventually at least the southern parts of the territory - perhaps in the same roundabout way that they got Texas. It ias just conceivable that Canada might get some of the northern parts - say the Dakotas and Montana - but even that is far from certain.

yourworstnightmare · May 24, 2011

I'd like to see a Louisiana Republic, but that's ASB. The US would get it at some point anyways. I guess the French would lose it at the Congress of Vienna, nominally to Spain, but there might be a silent agreement that the US is allowed to occupy it in exchange for some small compensation to Spain.

Philip · May 24, 2011

Devvy said:
I don't pretend to be an expert in American affairs (hence the thread!), but if the US House of Reps passed a vote denying the request as it almost did in OTL, would the US still be able to take/purchase/conquer any of the land?

American settlers move into a section of Louisiana.
Population grows.
Conflict arises with native populations/foreign powers.
Settlers petition US for annexation and protection.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

rcduggan · May 24, 2011

wolf_brother said:
Nobody could hold it. Perhaps Britain, Spain, and/or France manages to retain some of the choicer bits around the edges, but the US was the only power in the region who had the population, position and will power to exploit the area. The majority of the purchase is going to fall to the US with a POD as late as 1803, anything else is simply ASB.

This kind of American centrism (Americentrism?) annoys me. There is nothing inevitable about the US expansion via purchase of Louisiana, unless you accept that Manifest Destiny cannot fail and God is protecting the expanding United States. The Spanish still had a fairly competent military presence in the gulf region until 1820, and they would be able to deal with whatever backcountry American militia that arrives to seize New Orleans by force. Furthermore, if there is no purchase, the British would have an interest in keeping Louisiana out of French hands, so if the purchase fails then I could see them launching an expedition (possibly from Saint-Domingue, which IIRC they held at this point) to prevent Napoleon from retaining the American hinterland. And once Anglo-American tensions boiled over a few years later, it would be in the British national interest to keep American settlers from crossing the Mississippi (which they would definitely be able to do - it wasn't until the territory that settlement began after all).
-
Which brings me to another point. In 1820, there was still a huge amount of empty land in the US east of the Mississippi, including most of the Northwest Territory, the Southwest, and Florida (still Spanish). When you consider the fact that the US east of the Mississippi has a population today that is almost 80 times greater (and the NE territory has a population nine times greater than the US circa 1800), I don't think it's an absolute given that Americans would ever run out of land or that we as a people have some natural desire to expand west until we reach the Pacific. If prevented from crossing the Mississippi, there would be no American settlements like Texas, and the US would remain a small, compact, increasingly industrial state. Louisiana would become a British aligned republic in all probability, divided between the urban Anglo-Cajun elites in New Orleans and the Spanish and Anglo settlers in the backcountry (basically another Canada, and with the territory in British hands I could see if evolving in a similar fashion). Oregon would become part of Canada while California would remain Spanish.

Malta · May 24, 2011

I do think at somepoint the US would seize New Orleans and the wealthy area of the lower Mississippi. The rest could go it's seperate way under the influence of Canada/Britain or Mexico. I feel that events leading to Texas would come about, and the US would probably fill in the lower Great Plains.

Grimm Reaper · May 24, 2011

The British are delighted as they can now avoid any conflict with the United States by paying the United States off with French territory.

Dave Howery · May 24, 2011

rcduggan said:
I don't think it's an absolute given that Americans would ever run out of land or that we as a people have some natural desire to expand west until we reach the Pacific.

you're missing the point that the Americans really wanted New Orleans... because a big chunk of American exports passed through that port, and having it under foreign control was a hassle (France got pissy every so often and closed the port to American trade). I'm not saying that the USA is destined to get the LA territory or even NO... I'm saying they will do their best to get the city...

rcduggan · May 24, 2011

Dave Howery said:
you're missing the point that the Americans really wanted New Orleans... because a big chunk of American exports passed through that port, and having it under foreign control was a hassle (France got pissy every so often and closed the port to American trade). I'm not saying that the USA is destined to get the LA territory or even NO... I'm saying they will do their best to get the city...

That's true, but then again the US also really wanted Canada, and Cuba, and all of Oregon, etc ... but we never got it because other powers stood in the way. I am positing that the same thing could happen here.
Also, American exports from the west could always continue alone the Ohio-> Cumberland -> Tennessee -> Natchez route even without New Orleans...

Grimm Reaper said:
The British are delighted as they can now avoid any conflict with the United States by paying the United States off with French territory.

Or by threatening to close the Mississippi / NO to American trade...

Wendell · May 24, 2011

rcduggan said:
That's true, but then again the US also really wanted Canada, and Cuba, and all of Oregon, etc ... but we never got it because other powers stood in the way. I am positing that the same thing could happen here.
Also, American exports from the west could always continue alone the Ohio-> Cumberland -> Tennessee -> Natchez route even without New Orleans...

The difference here is that the Americans made a serious effort to buy New Orleans, and were offered all of Louisiana. New Orleans was that important to the U.S., and being a small area, could be easily obtained given the circumstances put forward in this thread.

Dave Howery · May 24, 2011

rcduggan said:
That's true, but then again the US also really wanted Canada, and Cuba, and all of Oregon, etc ... but we never got it because other powers stood in the way. I am positing that the same thing could happen here.
Also, American exports from the west could always continue alone the Ohio-> Cumberland -> Tennessee -> Natchez route even without New Orleans...

Or by threatening to close the Mississippi / NO to American trade...

few in the US wanted Canada or Cuba or all of OR, but most of the country wanted New Orleans. As for Cuba, we had a chance to take it as a colony after the SAW, but balked (luckily).

Grimm Reaper · May 24, 2011

rcduggan, why would the British have a problem with the Americans invading French territory, making the US a de facto ally of the British? France driven from North America and the US an ally equals a double win for the British.

Duke 4 · May 24, 2011

This kind of American centrism (Americentrism?) annoys me. There is nothing inevitable about the US expansion via purchase of Louisiana, unless you accept that Manifest Destiny cannot fail and God is protecting the expanding United States. The Spanish still had a fairly competent military presence in the gulf region until 1820, and they would be able to deal with whatever backcountry American militia that arrives to seize New Orleans by force. Furthermore, if there is no purchase, the British would have an interest in keeping Louisiana out of French hands, so if the purchase fails then I could see them launching an expedition (possibly from Saint-Domingue, which IIRC they held at this point) to prevent Napoleon from retaining the American hinterland. And once Anglo-American tensions boiled over a few years later, it would be in the British national interest to keep American settlers from crossing the Mississippi (which they would definitely be able to do - it wasn't until the territory that settlement began after all).

That same back country America Militia destroyed the best army in the world at the battle of New Orleans . They won't have any problems with an army from Spain that that got beat by Mexican rebels . Especially if Andrew Jackson is in charge of that army . Or if Winfield Scott is in charge. Either one of those men are far superior to anything the Spanish had to offer at that time.

wolf_brother · May 24, 2011

rcduggan said:
<snip>

See; (filler)

Philip said:
American settlers move into a section of Louisiana.

Population grows.

Conflict arises with native populations/foreign powers.

Settlers petition US for annexation and protection.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

New Orleans and most of the southern portions of the Purchase are going to fall to the US one way or another. It's not American exceptionalism to say that no other power in the region had the population, position, will or might to take it, all or in part, before the US. The Canadian-British might get the Dakotas, but that's about it. France or Spain certainly isn't going to get to hold onto the territory that's only nominally theirs to begin with.

Devvy · May 24, 2011

Duke 4 said:
That same back country America Militia destroyed the best army in the world at the battle of New Orleans . They won't have any problems with an army from Spain that that got beat by Mexican rebels . Especially if Andrew Jackson is in charge of that army . Or if Winfield Scott is in charge. Either one of those men are far superior to anything the Spanish had to offer at that time.

If you're referring to the 1812 battle, I've never thought of the British Army as the best of the world. According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans), the commanders of that Army appear to be nothing short of incompetent. Anyhow, randomness can change things - apparently the British intended for the fog to hide their advances, until the fog unexpectedly dissipated leaving them exposed to artillery fire. Not one of the British finest moments

On another note, let's say that Britain takes the Louisiana Territory. Assuming that they manage to hold it (savvy diplomacy, maybe guaranteeing by treaty the right of American freight to use the port for some period of time), the Floridas become American at some point in the 1820's following the Seminole Wars. Which means the USA acquires Mobile, and with it a deep water port on the Gulf Coast. This means that the US would no longer be bothered about acquiring New Orleans right?