French holding onto Louisiana ? is it Possible

Paul MacQ

Donor
I now see a thread regarding the no Louisiana Purchas,

Is there a scenario of the French not handing over Louisiana in 1762 to the Spanish??

And could this be held. I know the French are not as good as the British regarding colonies,

How much would this Butterfly the American Revolution? .And the following French Revolution?

Not sure if possible, Was thinking a period of the British and there Colonists ganging up and taking it at some time in the Future, Is it possible instead of a American Revolution You have British and there colonies of America fight the French ?, again.

This causing a delayed American Revolution,
France going Bankrupt in this type of war instead of supporting an American revolution??

map_loupur2.jpg
 
When the British were planning their 1762 invasion of Havana, they also planned for a attack on New Orleans/Louisiana.
After they ran into difficulties in Cuba the [Colonial] Army they were raising for N.O. was sent as reinforcement to Cuba.

The French were well aware of the British Plans for Louisiana, which is why they signed the secret treaty giving Louisiana to Spain before the Peace Negotiations.
 
During the 1803 negotiations with America, M. de Talleyrand (French minister) was VERY oposed to Bonaparte selling the Louisiana territory to the Yanks, as were the majority in the French Government circles. Boney had his reasons (to counter the Brits) and issued orders for the sale. If Boney did not have so sure a grip on France at this time, I doubt the sale would have gone ahead.
 
During the 1803 negotiations with America, M. de Talleyrand (French minister) was VERY oposed to Bonaparte selling the Louisiana territory to the Yanks, as were the majority in the French Government circles. Boney had his reasons (to counter the Brits) and issued orders for the sale. If Boney did not have so sure a grip on France at this time, I doubt the sale would have gone ahead.
Around this time Jefferson was willing to take Louisiana by force anyway, if he could not get it through negotiation. And with the French army sent to secure Louisiana lying dead in Haiti, Napoleon really could do little to prevent the Americans from taking Louisiana.
 
Around this time Jefferson was willing to take Louisiana by force anyway, if he could not get it through negotiation. And with the French army sent to secure Louisiana lying dead in Haiti, Napoleon really could do little to prevent the Americans from taking Louisiana.

rcduggan

Wasn't Jefferson doubtful on the legality of expanding by the purchase?

Also would he have been that insane? You talking about what is still a small, largely unarmed nation attacking the biggest military power [and 2nd naval power] in the world.

Even if the US could do a quick smash and grab on New Orleans they could have problems holding it in the face of a French counter attack or even blockage on the isolated attacking force. Not to mention when the French fleet starts blockading the east coast and landing an army or three to start burning the cities.

He could gamble on relying on Britain coming to the US's aid. However why should it. Britain knows that France would have great difficulty occupying the US but could spend years, many men and much treasure devastating it. Which keeps France out of everybody else's hair for that period while the French force in N America is a British hostage.

Steve
 
Last edited:
rcduggan

Wasn't Jefferson doubtful on the legality of expanding by the purchase?

Also would he have been that insane? You talking about what is still a small, largely unarmed nation attacking the biggest military power [and 2nd naval power] in the world.

Even if the US could do a quick smash and grab on New Orleans they could have problems holding it in the face of a French counter attack or even blockage on the isolated attacking force. Not to mention when the French fleet starts blockading the east coast and landing an army or three to start burning the cities.

He could gamble on relying on Britain coming to the US's aid. However why should it. Britain knows that France would have great difficulty occupying the US but could spend years, many men and much treasure devastating it. Which keeps France out of everybody else's hair for that period while the French force in N America is a British hostage.

Steve

Man I love how any European power pre-WWI is magically able to simultaneously blockade the East Coast, create an armada of city leveling ships, and keep multiple raider armies in supply, when they lack any significant logistical base close to the region at hand and have no other military or economic concerns in Europe.

Considering how the UK was already a major trading partner with the US, the possessor of the world's largest navy, and perpetually at war with Napoleonic France, I some how doubt they will have turned a blind eye towards France directing all of its navel resources towards NA.
 
Man I love how any European power pre-WWI is magically able to simultaneously blockade the East Coast, create an armada of city leveling ships, and keep multiple raider armies in supply, when they lack any significant logistical base close to the region at hand and have no other military or economic concerns in Europe.

Lets see. France like Britain, had a lot of experience in such operations and a number of bases in the region. Also at this time period the logistical tail required is a lot easier and simpler than later periods. Especially for the French who placed special emphasis on living off the land. I don't know where you get city levelling ships from? Possibly your inability to read posts you don't like? I mentioned it would be the armies that could be burning cities and that is something France has plenty of. Don't forget that France was suffering about 50k casualties a year in Spain a decade later. How big an army could the US support at this point.

I suggest you also read my last paragraph. If France is fighting a small-medium level war in America that probably keeps it out of everybody else's way. There was a strong desire for peace in Europe at this point and it was only the expansionist nature of Napoleon that meant war was resumed.


Considering how the UK was already a major trading partner with the US, the possessor of the world's largest navy, and perpetually at war with Napoleonic France, I some how doubt they will have turned a blind eye towards France directing all of its navel resources towards NA.

Britain had spent a long and fairly fruitless decade fighting France and had seen the government changed to one favouring peace with France then. If Napoleon's directing his attentions towards developing Louisiana and then reacting to a stupid US attack on France then unless and until France looks like winning big Britain can quietly sit on its hands and chuckle.:D France is spending men and money bogged down in the US and the longer it lasts the better for Britain. Only if it looks like the French are going to make lasting gains in the US heartland is Britain likely to step in, which is way too late to save a lot of American bacon.

The only downside for Britain I could see from this scebario is that the French fleet with gain valuable sea experience. However given the limited lootable value in the US at the time its likely to be a lot smaller due to the drain on the French treasury.
 
Bonaparte is just too late, since the original poster wants a P.O.D. that could conceivably butterfly away the french revolution. Louis XV would be better. An "Iron Louis" with temper to respond to the libels with deportation of political writers, a man who dreamed of a french- american empire and who disdained meddling in austrian succession, leaving the austrian to fend for themselves... Yes, such a king
might help keep the Lousiana french. Even so, maybe an even earlier POD would be neccessary.
 
Lets see. France like Britain, had a lot of experience in such operations and a number of bases in the region.

Which are with the exception of New Orleans, based in the Caribbean.

Also at this time period the logistical tail required is a lot easier and simpler than later periods. Especially for the French who placed special emphasis on living off the land.

So lets say the french land several armies on the North American continent. They take a port city and use it as the beach head and supply depot for their navel opperations. How deep can the french go into America, without the risk of having their forces be cut off. America is a very large country and France still needs to provide reinforcements and provision its men with food, shot, gunpowder, pack horses, fodder While some of this can be gained from looting, it ties down alot of men and forces them to be dispersed. Indeed, the size of america and its distance from any center of power is its main strenght in any such conflict.

I don't know where you get city leveling ships from? Possibly your inability to read posts you don't like?

A purely preemptive strike. There have been many threads discussing how a potential war between the early US and a European power would occur. Invariably there is always a side that proposes that a European power can simply use its navel superiority to shell every coastal city in the northeast to oblivion, and there fore induce the United States to surrender. This line of reasoning typically lasts until after WWI.

I mentioned it would be the armies that could be burning cities and that is something France has plenty of. Don't forget that France was suffering about 50k casualties a year in Spain a decade later. How big an army could the US support at this point.

About as many people as a nation of 5 people can provide at that time. However, America can recruit and conscript new soldiers fairly easily. France needs to transport them from accross the atlantic. Something that demands an enormous logistics tail. Particularly at a time when France is either set on conquering most of Europa.

I suggest you also read my last paragraph. If France is fighting a small-medium level war in America that probably keeps it out of everybody else's way. There was a strong desire for peace in Europe at this point and it was only the expansionist nature of Napoleon that meant war was resumed.

Considering that post 1803 Britain was already at war with France, I think your point is already moot. In fact Britain stayed at war with France for pretty much the entirity of the Nepoleonic wars (granted there was a brief period of peace after the french revoluntionary wars), and was always ready to provide loans and support towards any European state willing to challenge its power. Given that neither Prussia or Austria cared too much about France at that time, I hardly think France will be able to focus on a single theater at its leisure.




Britain had spent a long and fairly fruitless decade fighting France and had seen the government changed to one favouring peace with France then. If Napoleon's directing his attentions towards developing Louisiana and then reacting to a stupid US attack on France then unless and until France looks like winning big Britain can quietly sit on its hands and chuckle.:D France is spending men and money bogged down in the US and the longer it lasts the better for Britain. Only if it looks like the French are going to make lasting gains in the US heartland is Britain likely to step in, which is way too late to save a lot of American bacon.

Britain would be positively jubilant. It could continue its immensely profitable game of monopolizing overseas trade, and continue to undermine France's colonial position in southern India. Its arch enemy, and annoying rival are fighting one another. But as annoying as the US was, it was better for Britain to be on friendly terms with the US than otherwise. The United States was a large, fairly wealthy market for British manufactures. American grain kept the slaves in the Caribbean fed, which in turn supplied Britain with ever so much trading wealth. Finally the existence of a strong United States didn't threaten, or even effect the balance of power in Europe. The United States was a second rate power. However second rate powers are the ones who benefit the most in the struggles between greatpowers. They are strong enough to through a punch, but weak enough to be ignored or forgiven in the face of failure.
 

Paul MacQ

Donor
I see the Thread has diverged to the situation in 1803

Going back to 1762 the French holding onto the Land,
Britain has failed to take Cuba as noted, and Seven Years War has about a year to run both sides getting rather tired of the conflict. And may or may not try for Louisiana

If Louisiana for some reason stays with France, What would the Butterflies be to the Revolutions American and French? Would there be a M. de Talleyrand or Bonaparte ?? as we know them ?

Would there be an American Revolution ? or would it play out different and how would they play out with a French colony on the Back doorstep
 
If France keeps Louisiana, There will not be a New Orleans as whe know it, as it was the Spanish that built the City.

Whe have had a few threads about the French keeping Quebec instead of French Caribbean. I have to assume this is another swap/ Treaty thingy, of some kind where France keeps Louisiana.

France would realize that La, is in danger and move to build a series of forts, across the Territory.

Whe would have a large number, [but medium percentage] of French Canadians moving south. [Maybe enuff to change Quebec's view of the Revolution??]
However I don't see the French being any more willing to be Colonist ITTL than IOTL, Maybe a few Prisioners, and forced Colonists, but not enuff to really hold the Territory.

With French to the West, more Americans will want to move N/S, into Canada and Florida.

Britain will put more recourses into holding West Florida, Britain's attitude about bordering France being different than it's attitude about bordering Spain.

Whe will still have French on the mainland, to support Indian Allies. How this plays into the Proclamation of 1763, and British support for the Indians, is your Guess.

This is expensive, even more so than OTL. The British will look to the Colonies to help pay. However the French off across the Mississippi is a lot different from French in Nearby Quebec.
In the 1740's the Quebec French pushed the British back 50~100 miles in New York & Pennsylvania. Here there is little chance of something like that.

As such I see the same series of Misunderstandings, leading to a similar ARW.

If some how this is avoided, then whe have another French/English war sometime in the late 70's~early 80's, at which time England takes Louisiana.

If the ARW happens, I see this US including Canada and Florida.

The Push West will occur in the late 1700's~early 1800's with a US - French War over Louisiana, in the early 1800's.

France loses Louisiana at this time.
 
Britain had spent a long and fairly fruitless decade fighting France and had seen the government changed to one favouring peace with France then. If Napoleon's directing his attentions towards developing Louisiana and then reacting to a stupid US attack on France then unless and until France looks like winning big Britain can quietly sit on its hands and chuckle.:D France is spending men and money bogged down in the US and the longer it lasts the better for Britain. Only if it looks like the French are going to make lasting gains in the US heartland is Britain likely to step in, which is way too late to save a lot of American bacon.

I can't see this. London over his militarization of Holland, and when the cream of his fleet is strung out along the Atlantic Coast England sits by and does nothing?
 
When the British were planning their 1762 invasion of Havana, they also planned for a attack on New Orleans/Louisiana.
After they ran into difficulties in Cuba the [Colonial] Army they were raising for N.O. was sent as reinforcement to Cuba.

The French were well aware of the British Plans for Louisiana, which is why they signed the secret treaty giving Louisiana to Spain before the Peace Negotiations.

There's that and there's also the fact that the British offered to return all of the French territory they had taken in the French and Indian War in exchange for the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The French said no. They felt that New France had little economic vaule, as compared to their colonies in the Caribbean. All you need is to find a reason for the French to decide that they want to keep New France, along with Lousiana, and the butterflies are fairly profound, like the fact that you've blocked continued British expansion in North America, short circuited the American Revolution and strangled the United States in its cradle.
 
Last edited:

Tellus

Banned
Essentially for New-Orleans to stay French, they must avoid the fall of New-France in the 7 years war and/or ensure the territory is substantially more populous before the ACW.

The fate of the French colonies in America was ultimately sealed by being always outnumbered 15 to 1 by English colonists.

Ultimately the causes for that are stringent religious requirements to be allowed to settle in French colonies (Catholics only, whereas the Brits were all too happy to send the Protestants over), and too much blind trust in businesses. Those who were granted economic developments rights had the duty to bring quotas of colonists over every year; but businesses were (and are) all too happy to ignore such provisions when they feel they can get away with it.
 

Tellus

Banned
There's that and there's also the fact that the British offered to return all of the French territory they had taken in the French and Indian War in exchange for the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.

Thats not quite it, sorry. St. Pierre and Miquelon are islands off the Canadian maritimes that the Treaty transfering Canada to Britain left in possession of France. They are fishing rocks which Paris wanted to hold on to but they are of little value.

The islands Britain wanted in exchange for letting France keep all of Canada were Martinique and Guadaloupe, (IIRC, one of them, and half of the other) - extremely valuable carabean possessions which produced most of the world's sugar. They had many less French subjects, but they produced alot more money than Canada's furs ever did. In these conditions, some felt betrayed that gold mattered more than blood to the King, but it would have been financially very difficult to sacrifice those for Paris. It would have made the west indies pretty much entirely British, too.
 
Top