Instead of the USA buying Louisiana in 1803, which other powers could've bought the Louisiana Purchase? UK? Mexico? Netherlands? Who are some other plausible purchasers?
Louisiana Purchase - Other plausible buyers?
- Thread starter ElectricSheepNo54
- Start date
There was a rather famous AH novel which had the Ottoman Empire buying it. Personally though I think that, if the US doesn't buy it, it'll be partitioned between the Americans, Mexico and maybe the UK as soon as Mexico's independence has been established.
But seriously why should the Netherlands buy it, for instance? Louisiana was a grain producer, nothing more, which makes it very unappealing for newcomers to the Americas, since it probably won't be too profitable. Also there's the question whether the buyer can or even wants colonize it or not (which for instance isn't something that's very Dutch to do).
But seriously why should the Netherlands buy it, for instance? Louisiana was a grain producer, nothing more, which makes it very unappealing for newcomers to the Americas, since it probably won't be too profitable. Also there's the question whether the buyer can or even wants colonize it or not (which for instance isn't something that's very Dutch to do).
unprincipled peter
Donor
there's only two logical alternate buyers: Britain, who can add it to the Canadian empire, and Spain, who can add it to their Mexican empire.
Britain is an enemy of France at the moment (can't remember if the sale was during the Peace of Amiens, but whether at war or not, I doubt Britain is either interested or that they would fund France's war effort)
Spain had just given it up, so they had no real designs on it, and technically were the rightful owners anyhow as France didn't pay them what they owed them (Parma) for the trade. Spain protested, but not really all that loudly.
You really can't come up with a more perfect storm for the US to acquire it so cheaply and with them being the most logical choice. Once France lost interest, the US is the only one with any real interest in it, who were neutral in the world conflagration, and who had the means to settle it, and though they could barely afford it, the selling price was so cheap they couldn't say no. the most amazing thing about the whole episode is that there was actually a debate within the US about whether or not to buy it.
Britain is an enemy of France at the moment (can't remember if the sale was during the Peace of Amiens, but whether at war or not, I doubt Britain is either interested or that they would fund France's war effort)
Spain had just given it up, so they had no real designs on it, and technically were the rightful owners anyhow as France didn't pay them what they owed them (Parma) for the trade. Spain protested, but not really all that loudly.
You really can't come up with a more perfect storm for the US to acquire it so cheaply and with them being the most logical choice. Once France lost interest, the US is the only one with any real interest in it, who were neutral in the world conflagration, and who had the means to settle it, and though they could barely afford it, the selling price was so cheap they couldn't say no. the most amazing thing about the whole episode is that there was actually a debate within the US about whether or not to buy it.
Might sound a little ASB, but would Russia not try at place a bid into the New World linking Alaska and Louisiana.
Until they can get a firm foothold from Alaska to Oregon, no. Any ship that could reach Louisiana from Russia has to get through the Oresund between Denmark and Sweden, the Bosporous in the Ottoman Empire, or the Straits of Magellen around the southern tip of South America. All of which are difficult at best.
But what if Russia was able to forge an alliance with France, during the American territory purchase, Napoleon allowed Russia to house ships in one of France's harbour?
Could we see Russia emerge as a powerful state in the 18th Century?
Plus, at that time much of the interior of North America was still not very well known. Europeans would have had little idea of the distance between the western portions of the Louisiana Territory and the Pacific.
That could actually work as a good argument as to why the Russians would buy it, by underestimating the distance. Which could lead to some funny AH scenarios in all honesty.
What if France sold it off in parts? Some go to the U.S., some go to Mexico, some to the Russians, some uh back to Spain, some to uh Scandinavians, some to the Ottomans, New Orleans stays French or is a free city, etc. It's silly but what if financially this was more profitable than selling it in one big chunk.
Jasen777
Donor
Jefferson had authorized $10 million for New Orleans, if Napoleon had taken that properly the rest just gets taken anyways, but maybe would pay more after the fact.
Mexico was not independent yet and Spain would seem unlikely to pay their own territory back. Hard to see anyone else remotely interested.
Okay, well what if Napoleon decided to sell the territory off in parts. Like, hit up Jefferson a year or two after for more cash by selling another section, and another section, etc.
In a weird way, maybe Congress would be okay with that, because they can then deal with territory admission issues in a more gradual manner instead of absorbing the entire landmass at once. The only people who wouldn't be happy with this would be wildcat settlers who are impatient to move in and take land, but there weren't even a lot of them in that timeframe anyway.
Deleted member 93645
The northern 90% of the Louisiana Territory is pretty much useless without New Orleans though. The travel time from say Georgia to Arkansas overland then was much slower than sailing to New Orleans and then going up the river.
Jasen777
Donor
That certainly seems like the most (only?) plausible way for the "in parts" way to work. Though after selling New Orleans, the rest of Louisiana isn't of any use to Napoleon, hence why he dumped it OTL... But maybe if the US negotiators refuse to budge from what they were authorize to do, it could happen.
If this causes the U.S. to admit territories in a different way there could be interesting effects.
There's no rivers linking up the Louisiana Purchase land to any potential Pacific Coast holdings Russia might have. The only way to get to that land is across the Rocky Mountains.
Not to mention the US is gonna take the land anyway at some point. I don't know about plausible buyers (it'll be very impacted by the state of foreign relations in Europe at the time), but the only countries who could plausibly keep the land are the US and Britain unless you have a pre-18th century POD in mind.
What if France opened up settlement to private colonization companies? Were there any still in existence during the Napoleonic era?
I'd see the US just annexing the whole lot while everyone else is distracted anyways.
