DBWI: The "Louisiana Purchase"

Based on his inelastic interpretation of constitution Thomas Jefferson was naturally opposed to Napoleons offer of selling what was then known as the "Louisiana Territory". But given closer observation Napoleon was practically giving the land away, selling the whole lot for 15 million dollars (less than 3 cents per acre). Jefferson even wrote in his memoirs that he regretted the decision given its economic potential (although the tremendous amount of flack he got from the Federalists probably didn't help either). Naturally the land went back to Spain after Napoleon was defeated in Europe*, but how would the map of North America be different if the Jefferson had accepted the offer? (Feel free to illustrate your ideas with a map if you like :))

*The Congress of Vienna is unchanged outside of Louisiana going back to Spain
 
Last edited:
Who knows? The US would be a lot bigger and more powerful. I can't imagine how my tiny nation would affect world affairs too much anyhow, though!
 
Who knows? The US would be a lot bigger and more powerful. I can't imagine how my tiny nation would affect world affairs too much anyhow, though!

Now, there's no reason to be sarcastic. And with 180 million inhabitants and the world's second largest economy, the US is plenty big enough for most of us.

After all, the US did get the northern half of Louisiana when we divided the area up with the Empire of Mexico, and most of the rest of the west is pretty barren to this day. I suppose the extra raw materials would help, but after all, it's not like the successor states to the Empire are trying to keep US investment out. Perhaps there's a message for the US there, too: overextension isn't a good thing.

Bruce
 
Now, there's no reason to be sarcastic. And with 180 million inhabitants and the world's second largest economy, the US is plenty big enough for most of us.

After all, the US did get the northern half of Louisiana when we divided the area up with the Empire of Mexico, and most of the rest of the west is pretty barren to this day. I suppose the extra raw materials would help, but after all, it's not like the successor states to the Empire are trying to keep US investment out. Perhaps there's a message for the US there, too: overextension isn't a good thing.

Bruce

Agree here on all aspects. The US didn't really loose anything by not purchasing Louisiana. End of the day it still got everything north of the 36 latitude after Mexico became independent. And the bankrupt Empire sold it for a similar price per acre anyway.

And it occupied New Orleans shortly after - though the port retained its independence and has remained a free port ever since. US financiers and investors would be loosing a pretty good tax haven otherwise.

At the most I think the US would be in a better position to negotiate a Pacific boundary for itself. Likely splitting the Columbia territory with Britain. Another, but I think less likely possibility - would be eating California prior to the gold boom. If it went to war with Mexico over some border dispute. This could be caused by not having a well established border between Louisiana and Tejas.

I guess the only other loss are the Huichita oil fields in northern Tejas & Cimarron (Oklahoma). But that land is rather barren and it wasn't really exploited by Mexico nor Tejas post-independence until the oil was discovered in the 1940s.
 
After all, the US did get the northern half of Louisiana when we divided the area up with the Empire of Mexico,

There is the core of it. The popular assumption these days is the Tejas oil is the whole foundation of Mexican prosperity & global importance. That of course is a fairly recent view & certainly is not how academic economists and hard nosed businessmen see it. The cotton & other agriculture of the western side of the Mississippi basin, commercial traffic through Nuevo Orlean, & the Gold & Silver mines of Nuevo Mexico/California are a few of Mexicos advantages. The US certainly got second best with the scenic but more difficult to exploit Dakota territories. Conversely picking up a few choice locations in the Carribiean like Puerto Rico & close 'association' with the rest as been profitable.
 
Not to mention that relations with Mexico, had we purchased that land, would not be nearly as unilaterally cordial.as they have been since the partition of the Louisiana Region.
 
Not to mention that relations with Mexico, had we purchased that land, would not be nearly as unilaterally cordial.as they have been since the partition of the Louisiana Region.

Maybe so. The Mexican Democratic Republic have been our friends for many years, and mainly because we didn't go and try to conquer them to fulfill "Manifest Destiny" or whatever.

I think the one really bad thing about all this is that it took forever to get rid of slavery, though; Only in 1897 was slavery to be outlawed, and originally over the course of 10 years at that. Only after most of the Southern states tried to secede in March 1902, did Washington change its mind and eliminate the practice for good(the 19th Amendment, signed on April 2nd, 1904, the day of the surrender of Roland Davis's government just outside the CSA's capital, Atlanta).

And then, what of the Canadian Confederation? Would Canada have been the highly successful American-inspired democracy that it eventually became after gaining complete independence from Britain in 1861? Or would it have faced more problems, or perhaps even been conquered, in part or in the whole, by the U.S.(After all, there always have been a few people from Calgary to Toronto who've advocated union with the U.S. at some point or the other)?

@jycee: well, originally, yes, but I'd also like to point out that the border had to be readjusted in the early 1860s thanks to controversies over the original treaty. Eventually, we got everything north of the Arkansas River and the border west of that was set at 36*36' for everything east of the Rockies. However, though, while it may seem like a poor deal on the outside, the Mexican cities that did exist on the Arkansas ended up reaping enormous benefits from far easier trade with the U.S.

OOC: Not to sound spammy, but one of my own TLs, "A Nation, Divided" deals with the delay of westward American expansion, as can be seen in the link(anybody want to give me ideas? I'll all ears. :)).
Also, what should we do with Canada's west? I was thinking about either a Canada with the entire *Northwest(up to 54*40'), or possibly giving some or all of that region to the U.S., as was done in The Story of a Party or Union and Liberty.
 
Last edited:
What of the United States northern border, where would that be if the sale had gone through as opposed to where it is OTL?

OOC: Well DBWI OTL anyway
 
What of the United States northern border, where would that be if the sale had gone through as opposed to where it is OTL?

OOC: Well DBWI OTL anyway

Well, OTL's northern border is a bit complicated: Nominally when the Treaty of Green Bay was signed in 1818, it was 49* North all the way to the Rockies and back again to the Rainy River on the Wisconsin/Ontario border, but there's a good part of Manitoba that stretches pretty far south of that along the Red River[1],

OOC:

[1] Based on the watershed.

Also, do we want Canada to get part, or all of the Northwest, or do we let the U.S. have it all?
 
Top