Haiti as part of the Louisiana Purchase

So many possible butterflies. Just a few come to mind.

1. If the Americans pacify Haiti there is no way that they are not getting Santo Domingo at some point. Weakening neighbor sharing a border? As Florida (and to a lesser extent Texas) how that went. I can easily see an invasion like Jackson going into Florida, or a Republic of West Florida analog, happening here. Another, less likely but more fun possibility: in real life the spanish took it back during a reconquista in 1808. With the Spanish and British closing in, the French could have surrendered it...to the Americans. Has potential for all sorts of fun. French are losing it anyway, they can use it to buy favor with the Americans. Will Spain and Great Britain be willing to start a war over 2/3 an island that the Americans could very well legally own (the Louisiana Purchase notoriously did not include borders).

2. Not sure there would be a War of 1812. The Americans could be more focused on internal improvements (in so much as growing and strengthening Haiti) than picking a fight with an albeit distracted giant. They would have much more to lose.

3. If 1812 does happen, I don't see the British spurring a slave revolt. A pacified Haiti is much more valuable to them as a potential territory than a burning American possession is to them. Realistically the Americans wouldn't be able to reinforce the island consistently against the BN so it would make more sense to just try and take the island.

4. A successful taking of Haiti would have to cause the USN and Army to be built up (militia isn't taking and holding the island in all likelihood). Not saying huge buildup, but I would think more than six frigates would have to be built or in the process of being built at this point. Not to mention a much larger (though not huge by any stretch) Army. A war between American and Britain with a much better prepared US is certainly interesting. Not saying outright American victory, but certainly a large war in scope.

5. Possible change in race relations: assume 1812 goes off and Britain invades Haiti. I don't see the Americans offering emancipation in return for fighting, but I do see a major opening here for free coloreds and those of mixed race. Get a Petion or possibly returned Rigaud to offer to help defend against the British (who they would have no loyalty towards) in return for greater rights? Americans might see that as a better outcome than a British Haiti. Certainly would have major butterflies going forward not the least of which a change to the one drop policy.

Here's a question for you: what would the Americans call Haiti? I doubt they will call it Haiti, since that is the name the slaves gave it. Would they revert to Saint Domingue? I can see the Spanish half staying Santo Domingo but Saint Domingue and Santo Domingo would be a bit too confusing. I will say that Cap Francois which turned to Cap Hatien could change to Cape America or possibly Cape Washington. That city did appear to like to change name.

I say possibly Western Hispaniola? Or maybe some old native term? Look at our Western states at how many are named after Indian tribes- even Mormon Utah is named for the Ute tribe.

A question, since you developed this ATL farther than I could have- How about the Spanish-American War of 1898; already occupying Hispaniola would the Americans be as concerned with Cuba? And if the war does still start, would the US care to keep Puerto Rico because Hispaniola is already doing the strategic purpose of a PR, and if no, then what happens to PR? Could having already successfully(?) incorporating Hispaniola lead the US to KEEP Cuba instead of a Platt Amendment? If S-A War still happens and the US keeps both Cuba and Puerto Rico, then buys the Danish West Indies in 1916 (US Virgin Islands) could this lead to French and British (and Dutch) colonies in the Caribbean to want to join the USA in the 1960s-1980s instead of independence? Or maybe the West Indies Federation (1958-1963 OTL) is actually successful as and becomes a dominion as a counterweight to imperialist American influence in the Caribbean?
 
Last edited:
I say possibly Western Hispaniola? Or maybe some old native term? Look at our Western states at how many are named after Indian tribes- even Mormon Utah is named for the Ute tribe.

A question, since you developed this ATL farther than I could have- How about the Spanish-American War of 1898; already occupying Hispaniola would the Americans be as concerned with Cuba? And if the war does still start, would the US care to keep Puerto Rico because Hispaniola is already doing the strategic purpose of a PR, and if no, then what happens to PR? Could having already successfully(?) incorporating Hispaniola lead the US to KEEP Cuba instead of a Platt Amendment? If S-A War still happens and the US keeps both Cuba and Puerto Rico, then buys the Danish West Indies in 1916 (US Virgin Islands) could this lead to French and British (and Dutch) colonies in the Caribbean to want to join the USA in the 1960s-1980s instead of independence? Or maybe the West Indies Federation (1958-1963 OTL) is actually successful as and becomes a dominion as a counterweight to imperialist American influence in the Caribbean?

Western Hispaniola is a definite possibility. Maybe some variation on Arawak?

I would guess that the Spanish would have been kicked out of the Greater Antilles long before 1898. A successful American Hispaniola would make Cuba much more attractive to the Americans (who already would have a successful Carribean colony/state(s)) and to some of the Cubans themselves. Cuban planters who are sick of the Spanish would see the Americans as a legitimate option, far more so than in OTL.

Past that I am not sure how it would all play out. Americans could go crazy expansionist and try to make it an American lake, but I don't know if any of the remaining possessions aside from maybe Jamaica would offer the kind of risk reward ratio that the Americans would want. Picking a fight with France to get Guadoloupe when you could possibly lose Cuba/Hispaniola/Puerto Rico? Doubtful. The better chance is that there is a greater focus on Mexico (the Americans would already have a large Spanish subpopulation) and Central America. Maybe an earlier canal/more support for Walker in Nicaragua?
 
Alt History Buff:

I would guess than a successful American occupation of Haiti would go as well for the "freed" slaves as it went for any of our Indian wars. You would have to ask an Indian about that, if you can find one (to paraphrase the great historian...George Carlin). Ironically there would probably be a lot of casinos on the land now, so it might be a better analogy that my quip originally intended.

Americans would want it for all the reasons anyone would: huge potential for massive profits. I seem to recall that in 1790, before the revolt, that the GDP of Haiti alone was about 1/6 that of the United States (I do not know where I read that, I will have to search for my source). Even a less successful Haiti would be an enormous economic boom for the country.

Remember, the Americans wanted Florida for what? Threat of slave revolt from "escaped" slaves? Check. It had a hostile population (Seminole Wars) and climate. Much lower reward though, with the exception that it had a land border.
 
I was thinking the Americans could hold the northern plain and let the rest be kind of a no man's land so to speak. Control the major ports and that's about it. Eventually the countryside would pacify just through attrition. Middle and southern districts spend a generation or two under American rule and it could work itself out. Possibly.

The northern plain? That was Dessalines's fiefdom and the site where the original 1791 revolt began. That would be probably the most difficult part of the island to subdue.

I really don't think it's feasible. Even if the Americans managed to gain control of some portion of the island, this would be extremely difficult to maintain. The inevitable attempt at re-establishing slavery (there is no way the Southern states would accept U.S. rule of Haiti otherwise) would lead to a renewed revolt, not to mention invasion from Haitian forces based elsewhere on the island. To hold on to any part of Haiti would require a level of military commitment that the early 19th-century U.S. was simply not prepared to make.

The real butterfly of this would be that "Haiti" would become a reference point in American discourse like "Vietnam" later became, as an example of the folly of foreign intervention. This could lead to a greater sense of isolationism and no Monroe Doctrine.
 
Last edited:
My reasoning for the northern plain is thus: it has a natural border along the south (mountain range) as well as commands a relatively small geographic area (compared to the rest of the colony). I could see the Americans kind of hunkering down and building up that area. Not claiming it would be easy or necessarily the most likely outcome, but definitely a possible one.

I am not sure that Haiti would be an early version of Vietnam (in regards to how it is remembered, it absolutely would be a prolonged guerrilla war that was messy at best). We fought a horrific war in the Philippines to pacify them, with more than enough atrocities to go around, and I would bet you 99% of people have no knowledge of it at all. Heck, even many of the atrocities with the Native Americans have been forgotten. Seminole Wars and Dade Massacre anyone?

I think there was a different standard of acceptable wartime behavior during the time, especially against people of color, with an extra especially against rebelled slaves. I think this could be the earliest American genocide (if we view treatment of the Native Americans a genocide) IF the Americans have the stomach economically and politically to see it through.
 

Deleted member 67076

Don't you think a much earlier war is more likely? Puts all kind of pressure on Cuba: Americans to the east and North. I can see a major play for Cuba before the ACW let alone 1898. It also could put Puerto Rico on the American "wish list."

Interesting thought: If Cuba is a target for the Americans because it is surrounded by the Americans, would not the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos be a target for the same reason?

The earlier a war starts, the greater the odds are in Spain's favor as the US is far weaker and Spain hasn't gone to hell yet.

Besides, the butterfly effect would mean that an 1898ish war going on schedule would almost certainly not happen in the same sequence of events.

I was thinking the Americans could hold the northern plain and let the rest be kind of a no man's land so to speak. Control the major ports and that's about it. Eventually the countryside would pacify just through attrition. Middle and southern districts spend a generation or two under American rule and it could work itself out. Possibly.
Or the Americans would pull out as they're not getting enough profits to justify losing so much men, ships, arms and money into a colonial quagmire. The American people are not going to like the countless stories the press puts out about their boys being killed in some malarial jungle.

Controlling the ports but not the hinterland where the bulk of the people live means they're just going to reorganize and launch countless counterstrikes on the Americans. And unlike the US army, the Haitians can afford to lose people.

So many possible butterflies. Just a few come to mind.

1. If the Americans pacify Haiti there is no way that they are not getting Santo Domingo at some point. Weakening neighbor sharing a border? As Florida (and to a lesser extent Texas) how that went. I can easily see an invasion like Jackson going into Florida, or a Republic of West Florida analog, happening here. Another, less likely but more fun possibility: in real life the spanish took it back during a reconquista in 1808. With the Spanish and British closing in, the French could have surrendered it...to the Americans. Has potential for all sorts of fun. French are losing it anyway, they can use it to buy favor with the Americans. Will Spain and Great Britain be willing to start a war over 2/3 an island that the Americans could very well legally own (the Louisiana Purchase notoriously did not include borders).
I question why America would take up the offer. They'd be well aware the French lost over 80,000 troops trying to keep that real estate and the Haitians won't be submitting easily.

2. Not sure there would be a War of 1812. The Americans could be more focused on internal improvements (in so much as growing and strengthening Haiti) than picking a fight with an albeit distracted giant. They would have much more to lose.
What? Why?

Unless you mean giant plantations and an extensive Military Industrial complex on the tightly held American bases, I can't see much money flowing down to Haiti. Not when there's more profits to be made building canals up north.

3. If 1812 does happen, I don't see the British spurring a slave revolt. A pacified Haiti is much more valuable to them as a potential territory than a burning American possession is to them. Realistically the Americans wouldn't be able to reinforce the island consistently against the BN so it would make more sense to just try and take the island.
But its also an amazing way to weaken the Americans in the short term, where they can have a greater edge while dictating peace terms and getting a better deal long term.

Slavery and sugar were declining anyway, so who cares about the consequences of starting a slave revolt?

4. A successful taking of Haiti would have to cause the USN and Army to be built up (militia isn't taking and holding the island in all likelihood). Not saying huge buildup, but I would think more than six frigates would have to be built or in the process of being built at this point. Not to mention a much larger (though not huge by any stretch) Army. A war between American and Britain with a much better prepared US is certainly interesting. Not saying outright American victory, but certainly a large war in scope.
That's less money to pump into internal improvements, which means less economic growth over time. Not sure how that helps the US.

5. Possible change in race relations: assume 1812 goes off and Britain invades Haiti. I don't see the Americans offering emancipation in return for fighting, but I do see a major opening here for free coloreds and those of mixed race. Get a Petion or possibly returned Rigaud to offer to help defend against the British (who they would have no loyalty towards) in return for greater rights? Americans might see that as a better outcome than a British Haiti. Certainly would have major butterflies going forward not the least of which a change to the one drop policy.
The Social Conditions of America, especially their One Drop Rule makes me think all of this is exceedingly unlikely.

I say possibly Western Hispaniola? Or maybe some old native term? Look at our Western states at how many are named after Indian tribes- even Mormon Utah is named for the Ute tribe.
It'd be called Quisqueya or Cibao if it wouldn't be called Santo Domingo.

A question, since you developed this ATL farther than I could have- How about the Spanish-American War of 1898; already occupying Hispaniola would the Americans be as concerned with Cuba? And if the war does still start, would the US care to keep Puerto Rico because Hispaniola is already doing the strategic purpose of a PR, and if no, then what happens to PR? Could having already successfully(?) incorporating Hispaniola lead the US to KEEP Cuba instead of a Platt Amendment? If S-A War still happens and the US keeps both Cuba and Puerto Rico, then buys the Danish West Indies in 1916 (US Virgin Islands) could this lead to French and British (and Dutch) colonies in the Caribbean to want to join the USA in the 1960s-1980s instead of independence? Or maybe the West Indies Federation (1958-1963 OTL) is actually successful as and becomes a dominion as a counterweight to imperialist American influence in the Caribbean?
Ai ya. Ya'll love butterfly genocide.
My reasoning for the northern plain is thus: it has a natural border along the south (mountain range) as well as commands a relatively small geographic area (compared to the rest of the colony). I could see the Americans kind of hunkering down and building up that area. Not claiming it would be easy or necessarily the most likely outcome, but definitely a possible one.
Again, then the American don't control the bulk of the population. In fact they've just made themselves a massive target as the South of Haiti rallies against the US invaders and launches periodic strikes to liberate their country. Probably as the British or whoever smuggles arms and officers in an attempt to weaken the Americans.

Its a quagmire I simply can't see the Americans win.

I am not sure that Haiti would be an early version of Vietnam (in regards to how it is remembered, it absolutely would be a prolonged guerrilla war that was messy at best). We fought a horrific war in the Philippines to pacify them, with more than enough atrocities to go around, and I would bet you 99% of people have no knowledge of it at all. Heck, even many of the atrocities with the Native Americans have been forgotten. Seminole Wars and Dade Massacre anyone?

I think there was a different standard of acceptable wartime behavior during the time, especially against people of color, with an extra especially against rebelled slaves. I think this could be the earliest American genocide (if we view treatment of the Native Americans a genocide) IF the Americans have the stomach economically and politically to see it through.

Huge difference. Haiti has a few things most of the Native Americans lacked: Favorable numbers, favorable logistics and favorable terrain.

Haiti is far from the US's power base, its densely populated yet mountainous and defensible and standard tactics of overwhelming force and sabotage via disease won't work against this battle hardened population.
 
I am not sure that Haiti would be an early version of Vietnam (in regards to how it is remembered, it absolutely would be a prolonged guerrilla war that was messy at best). We fought a horrific war in the Philippines to pacify them, with more than enough atrocities to go around, and I would bet you 99% of people have no knowledge of it at all. Heck, even many of the atrocities with the Native Americans have been forgotten. Seminole Wars and Dade Massacre anyone?

That was a century later, when the United States was far stronger militarily. Also, the U.S. did not enslave the Philippine population in the aftermath, which it most certainly would have done if it had invaded Haiti in 1804.

I think you are greatly overestimating the strength of the Jefferson-era U.S. miitary and underestimating the strength of the Haitian forces. To compare this to the Indian wars is missing the mark. Most Indian tribes had just a few thousand members and the U.S. mostly fought them with little army squadrons. And again, the goal there was not to enslave the Indians, just relocate them to reservations. Still, it was not always easy.

Haiti had a population of half a million and a large chunk of its male population was willing to take up arms. They knew defeat meant the re-establishment of slavery. Britain, Spain and France sent whole armies to fight them and lost. If the U.S. had the advantage of geographical proximity, it still had a much smaller military budget in general, and it is very difficult to imagine Jefferson wanting to make the kind of commitment necessary to be successful in Haiti, if it was even possible - the Louisiana Purchase already blew up the national budget.

Any invasion of Haiti was a Catch-22: you could not succeed there without the collaboration of local leaders, but to get them on your side you'd have to pledge never to re-establish slavery, and that would defeat the purpose of invading.

A U.S. invasion of Haiti would be enormously costly and - in contrast to the Philippines - almost certainly end in failure. That's where the Vietnam point comes in. Policymakers remember failures.
 
Last edited:
1. The earlier a war starts, the greater the odds are in Spain's favor as the US is far weaker and Spain hasn't gone to hell yet.

It would be awfully close though. Within a few years of this Spain will be invaded by France, lose most of it's American colonies. Not saying they aren't a Great Power, but the Spain of 1820 is not even close to the Spain of 1800. Plus the Americans would be stronger militarily in OTL just out of basic need.

2. Or the Americans would pull out as they're not getting enough profits to justify losing so much men, ships, arms and money into a colonial quagmire. The American people are not going to like the countless stories the press puts out about their boys being killed in some malarial jungle.

Controlling the ports but not the hinterland where the bulk of the people live means they're just going to reorganize and launch countless counterstrikes on the Americans. And unlike the US army, the Haitians can afford to lose people.

I agree the controlling the ports strategy would not work (see the British and LeClerc). However, is this a fight that the Americans can afford to lose? Losing to a bunch of rebelled slaves would have massive repercussions throughout the United States, not just in the South. The Americans could keep fighting because they couldn't afford not to.

3. Unless you mean giant plantations and an extensive Military Industrial complex on the tightly held American bases, I can't see much money flowing down to Haiti. Not when there's more profits to be made building canals up north.

Internal improvements was the wrong phrase, in the traditional sense, and I apologize. I meant they would be more interested in domestic rather than international issues. I do see a huge push on plantations in Haiti through. And tightly held American bases.

4. But its also an amazing way to weaken the Americans in the short term, where they can have a greater edge while dictating peace terms and getting a better deal long term.

Slavery and sugar were declining anyway, so who cares about the consequences of starting a slave revolt?

Agree with the first part. I still think the possibility of a British Haiti would outweigh the short term goals though.

Declines in sugar and slavery does not mean that either are dead by any stretch of the imagination. You are still two decades away from British emancipation and five decades from American. Even longer for other parts of Latin America (Brazil). Work on the sugar beet has started but it is by no stretch a fully viable alternative at the moment.

5. That's less money to pump into internal improvements, which means less economic growth over time. Not sure how that helps the US.

A successful Haiti (a huge if admittedly) would be a huge boom to the US economy. Money that the colony would kick off could pay for any number of improvements. If successful.

6. The Social Conditions of America, especially their One Drop Rule makes me think all of this is exceedingly unlikely.

They say necessity is the mother of invention. Surely a British invasion would be quite a necessity. I see it kind of like the Tuskegee Airmen and black soldiers in WW2: they didn't single handedly bring about racial equality but they certainly got people thinking. It's a start.

7. It'd be called Quisqueya or Cibao if it wouldn't be called Santo Domingo.

Not familiar with the first one, I have to look into it more.

8. Huge difference. Haiti has a few things most of the Native Americans lacked: Favorable numbers, favorable logistics and favorable terrain.

Haiti is far from the US's power base, its densely populated yet mountainous and defensible and standard tactics of overwhelming force and sabotage via disease won't work against this battle hardened population.

The Seminoles, for example, had both favorable logistics and favorable terrain. Haiti wasn't nearly as densely populated after over a decade of rebellion, civil war, invasion. Wikipedia puts the number of civilian casualties at 100k but I've seen numbers far higher.
 
That was a century later, when the United States was far stronger militarily. In 1900 the U.S. could have invaded Haiti also (and it did in 1915). But it could not have in 1800.

I think you are greatly overestimating the strength of the Jefferson-era U.S. miitary and underestimating the strength of the Haitian forces. To compare this to the Indian wars is missing the mark. Most Indian tribes had just a few thousand members and the U.S. mostly fought them with little army squadrons. And even that was not always easy.

Haiti had a population of half a million and a large chunk of its male population was willing to take up arms. (Remember, most Haitians had actually been born free, in Africa, only to be enslaved and brought to Saint-Domingue, and then they regained their freedom in 1793-94. They knew what freedom was, and also knew what it meant to lose it, which made them so willing to fight to keep it.) Britain, Spain and France sent whole armies to fight them - Napoleon sent his own brother-in-law - and lost. If the U.S. had the advantage of geographical proximity, it still had a much smaller military budget in general, and it is very difficult to imagine Jefferson wanting to make the kind of commitment necessary to be successful in Haiti, if it was even possible - the Louisiana Purchase already blew up the national budget.

Any invasion of Haiti was a Catch-22: you could not succeed there without the collaboration of local leaders, but to get them on your side you'd have to pledge never to re-establish slavery, and that would defeat the purpose of invading.

A U.S. invasion of Haiti would be enormously costly and - in contrast to the Philippines - almost certainly end in failure. That's where the Vietnam point comes in. Policymakers remember failures.

All good points.

I am under no illusions about the Jeffersonian military. It was a complete joke. However the military in 1815 was far different than that in 1812. I see that happening here. Military improvements happen out of necessity. Jefferson can be anti-standing army all he wants right up to the point that he needs one.

I will admit that my knowledge of Haitian military forces is not quite where I want it to be. In my various readings I have always found them to be undersupplied and over manned. Most of their victories came when they had overwhelming numbers (especially Battle of Vertières). The French lost more due to disease than the Haitians. They actually did quite well in many of their battles despite being so outnumbered.

Are you sure policy makers remember failures though? Have you seen the US government (I include both parties in this)? :rolleyes:
 
Wanted to post a quick thank you for everyone who responded to this. I got a lot of good insight. This is a timeline that has bounced around my head for longer than I care to admit and it was good to get such great feedback. Any additional feedback is obviously appreciated. Currently as I am working through it (in notes form, nothing anywhere close to publishing) I have it turning into a bloodbath. A few questions though:

1. I do not know a huge amount about the North/South divide during this time period but I am guessing it isn't as extreme as it was 50 years later. Would northerners oppose this as a southern land grab or support it as a chance to drastically increase merchantile interests (rum distilleries, increased shipping home and to Europe, etc)?

2. Would a massacre of Northern militia at the hands of a "slave" army rally the north or make them ask what the hell they are doing there? In 1850 I know that answer, not so much in 1805.

3. Assume it's a bloodbath (safe assumption without going ASB). I would assume it would gradually becoming increasingly unpopular. Would that be enough to get a Federalist elected in 1808 or are they so far gone at this point?
 

Deleted member 67076

1. The earlier a war starts, the greater the odds are in Spain's favor as the US is far weaker and Spain hasn't gone to hell yet.

It would be awfully close though. Within a few years of this Spain will be invaded by France, lose most of it's American colonies. Not saying they aren't a Great Power, but the Spain of 1820 is not even close to the Spain of 1800. Plus the Americans would be stronger militarily in OTL just out of basic need.
Spain had a navy numbering nearly 200 ships in 1790. AFAIK the American's don't even have a fraction of that. To say nothing that Cuba was well armed and a population of 550,000 (not counting Spanish Soldiers on guard). They could play the guerrilla game and bleed the American's dry.

I agree the controlling the ports strategy would not work (see the British and LeClerc). However, is this a fight that the Americans can afford to lose? Losing to a bunch of rebelled slaves would have massive repercussions throughout the United States, not just in the South. The Americans could keep fighting because they couldn't afford not to.
I would think so.

The economic cost of war would be a massive political blow to the current leaders and eventually the people would tire of war. Its a very good political tactic at the disposal for opponents. And outside of the South, there wasn't much fear of slave revolts, so its not like the plantation lobby will be overwhelming enough to keep the pressure on.

Agree with the first part. I still think the possibility of a British Haiti would outweigh the short term goals though.
The British would never want direct rule in Haiti. That's expensive to administer. They'd be perfectly fine playing the neocolonial, economic domination route just fine.

Declines in sugar and slavery does not mean that either are dead by any stretch of the imagination. You are still two decades away from British emancipation and five decades from American. Even longer for other parts of Latin America (Brazil). Work on the sugar beet has started but it is by no stretch a fully viable alternative at the moment.
But it does drastically weaken the sugar lobby's influence which we cannot ignore. That helped Britain to pass abolition.

A successful Haiti (a huge if admittedly) would be a huge boom to the US economy. Money that the colony would kick off could pay for any number of improvements. If successful.
It'd be way too much of a blackhole money sink to get that level of success for the US to try. And of course, there's the racial dynamic which is going to make people back home upset that black people are getting funds that would otherwise they'd receive, which of course will become a political debate and a tool for politicians to exploit for their political gain.

They say necessity is the mother of invention. Surely a British invasion would be quite a necessity. I see it kind of like the Tuskegee Airmen and black soldiers in WW2: they didn't single handedly bring about racial equality but they certainly got people thinking. It's a start.
One that would take too long before slave revolts rear their ugly head once more and harden moderates, causing a backslide in progress.

The Seminoles, for example, had both favorable logistics and favorable terrain. Haiti wasn't nearly as densely populated after over a decade of rebellion, civil war, invasion. Wikipedia puts the number of civilian casualties at 100k but I've seen numbers far higher.
Even after all of that Haiti still had anywhere from 300,000-500,000 people living in an area half the size of Bulgaria, through rugged terrain.
 
Spain drastically outnumbered the American navy, but they were tied down with fighting in Europe. Jackson managed to invade Florida a decade later without the use of a navy.

Cant necessarily disagree with you on the economic cost. Were new England merchants as tied to southern plantations as they were during king cotton? I honestly dont know how close the economic ties were between states.

Great British tried to do direct rule less than a decade before. They left due to having their troops tied up elsewhere. This board is full of pists talking about how if 1812 had gone longer the British veterans of the Napoleonic wars would come to the states and crush them. Couldn't they also have been sent to Haiti then as well?

Fair point on the weakening the sugar lobby, however I think with 20/20 hindsight we know it was a trend, not a downturn. Not back then they would have seen the foresight to tell the difference.

Dont disagree with either of your last two points. Thank you
 
Top