Napoleon invade America

What if he initiate a Southern Rebelion some 60 years earlier than OTL? Napoleon had been pro-slavery concerning his actions in Haiti.

Napoléon was not an abolitionist, but he was not particulary pro-slavery either. His goal was to enforce his (or France's) authority on the sugar islands. At the peace of Amiens, the British gave back Martinique they conquered on the French and in which slavery had never been abolished (in fact, the white planters surrendered the island to the British in order to keep the slavery system in place). In order to appease the planters, Napoléon gave assurance slavery would not be abolished in Martinique (act of may 1802). In the other french-held colonies (Guadeloupe, Guyane and Saint-Dominque), slavery was not to be re-established. Well, that was the plan, but with Haiti/Saint Domingue going its own way, the local administrations effectively re-established slavery everywhere, including former slavery-free islands, and Napoléon got along with confirming decrees (july and december 1802). The main issue with Haiti was not slavery, it was Toussaint Louverture assuming all powers without french overseeing.
 
The best scenario I've encountered is have Napoleon flee to French Louisiana, and exploit divisions within the US and the central government's relations with territorial Tennessee/Kentucky to either get those states to join Louisiana or otherwise get a flow of settlers to Louisiana. How much territorial leaders in the West would care to acknowledge Napoleon as their emperor, I don't know--you'd have to really make the US disfunctional for that happen no doubt, but let's say the US is a bit worse off for this scenario to work.

So I suppose with this you could have Napoleon defeat US attempts to reclaim the trans-Appalachian lands and establish an independent Empire of Louisiana. Followed by a trans-Appalachian campaign (aimed at maybe Virginia/Maryland/Pennsylvania) to break the back of the United States from interfering for years to come. Not very plausible, I know, but it's an intriguing concept.
What you described is what Aaron Burr and Gen Wilkinson's plan was in the 1780s. Problem for Napoleon is this is 30 yrs later- despite you calling them territories TN and KY were states by the time you are talking about. There's one thing to talk about conquering a territory and another about a US state.
 
What you described is what Aaron Burr and Gen Wilkinson's plan was in the 1780s. Problem for Napoleon is this is 30 yrs later- despite you calling them territories TN and KY were states by the time you are talking about. There's one thing to talk about conquering a territory and another about a US state.

Yeah, it was an interesting plan, it just didn't turn out right (an understatement, I know). I think that it reflects some underlying political impulse in those states at the time, since New Orleans was a hugely important trade outlet for that area and all. And it isn't like they were particularly well-populated then, and if we assume the US is doing horrible and the right people in TN/KY get the right voice, it seems logical to join Spain, or for this POD, join Napoleon and presumably support his forces if the US complains.
 
If Haiti stays w France, and the French/Haitian Navy is stirring up trouble in the Caribbean, and Spain hands over (or "sells") Florida to France -- if all this happens, what are the chances Napoleon has to deal with a rebellion on the NA continent? Now yes, I realize in such a situation the smart move to handle this situation deftly, since the actual governing institutions in Louisiana and Florida are full of Spainiards, plus there's vulnerabilities to the RN and US to consider -- but supposing, coming this far, Napoleon shows a lack of deftness?

What I'm getting at is, once you have a black Haitian army on the North American continent, even if they're in ostensibly French territory, it's not too hard for events to spiral out of control...
 
one of the "What Might Have Been" collections has a story on this idea, 'When Free Men Shall Stand'. The basic POD is that Napoleon concentrates on taking out England rather than haring off into Russia (IIRC), and absorbs British North America. The story is set in the 1830s or so, and Sam Houston is the main character, leading a mixed US force into Louisiana to take it from the French. Along the way, it's mentioned that sometime in the past, Napoleon had attacked the US and taken Maine from them, and this time around, the US got it back, and New Orleans was about to fall...
 
Some time during the ATL Peace of Amiens Barbary pirates attack British and French merchant ships causing outrage in Paris and London, the British have the navy and the French have the army and work together to invade the pirate bases in Morocco.
This leads to better long term engagement between these two old foes so when French settlements in Louisiana need protection from Indians and US settlers the British navy transports Napoleons troops there (it also gets them out of Europe). The US sees this as a threat and attacks French forts and British ships wars ensures the world ends up being divided between the French and the British.
 
Some time during the ATL Peace of Amiens Barbary pirates attack British and French merchant ships causing outrage in Paris and London, the British have the navy and the French have the army and work together to invade the pirate bases in Morocco.
This leads to better long term engagement between these two old foes so when French settlements in Louisiana need protection from Indians and US settlers the British navy transports Napoleons troops there (it also gets them out of Europe). The US sees this as a threat and attacks French forts and British ships wars ensures the world ends up being divided between the French and the British.

This implies Pitt is out of the way. He would never accept such cooperation.
 
I don't understand - this seems simple enough. Napoleon already has forces in Louisiana. Can't he just invade from there?

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/louisiana-purchase
What forces in Louisiana? As far as I can see the only substantial French military force in the general area was in what is now called Haiti - and which was shrinking by the day because the men were dying from Yellow Fever. By the end there were only 7,000 men left.
 
What forces in Louisiana? As far as I can see the only substantial French military force in the general area was in what is now called Haiti - and which was shrinking by the day because the men were dying from Yellow Fever. By the end there were only 7,000 men left.
True, what I meant was Napoleon already owned a sizable part of continental America, from which he could amass troops and then invade. Troops would have to be sent from France, as was Napoleon's Feb 1803 plan (canceled in March) per the link I posted above.

Events of 1803

January Jefferson sends James Monroe to join Livingston in France.

February Napoleon decides against sending more troops to Saint Domingue and instead orders forces to sail to New Orleans.

March Napoleon cancels military expedition to Louisiana.

April 11 Foreign Minister Talleyrand tells Livingston that France is willing to sell all of Louisiana.
 
True, what I meant was Napoleon already owned a sizable part of continental America, from which he could amass troops and then invade. Troops would have to be sent from France, as was Napoleon's Feb 1803 plan (canceled in March) per the link I posted above.

Events of 1803

January Jefferson sends James Monroe to join Livingston in France.

February Napoleon decides against sending more troops to Saint Domingue and instead orders forces to sail to New Orleans.

March Napoleon cancels military expedition to Louisiana.

April 11 Foreign Minister Talleyrand tells Livingston that France is willing to sell all of Louisiana.
Yes, but the problem is that apart from New Orleans there were very few people in Louisiana at that time. And by 1803 the forces in Saint Domingue were pitifully weak due to Yellow Fever - a ration strength of 7,000 I think. That's a ludicrously small number. Add on the fact that the peace with Britain was rapidly unravelling then you have the reason why Napoleon realised that it really wasn't worth his time bothering and it was better to sell it and make a profit.
 
Yes, but the problem is that apart from New Orleans there were very few people in Louisiana at that time. And by 1803 the forces in Saint Domingue were pitifully weak due to Yellow Fever - a ration strength of 7,000 I think. That's a ludicrously small number. Add on the fact that the peace with Britain was rapidly unravelling then you have the reason why Napoleon realised that it really wasn't worth his time bothering and it was better to sell it and make a profit.
Fully agreed. But to the point of this post, if Napoleon wanted to attempted a failed invasion of the USA, he has the launchpoint.
 
the USA is ridiculously weak at this time. any foreign force of size could easily defeat them. they are protected by a very fortuitous set of circumstances.
the issue is that France lacks a navy to facilitate such an invasion (plus, most importantly, no real reason to invade en masse). the launching point of Haiti was decimated by disease, but even if it hadn't, Britain isn't going to sit idly by during the peace of Amiens while France carves up North America.
Britain has the issue of having a navy, but no real army, and no real reason to beat the shit out of USA, which is why they didn't do so in the OTL war of 1812.

Another problem is what constitutes defeating the USA? it's total ASB to think about occupying the states. invading successfully is no problem. maintaining control isn't going to happen. So what does France get by declaring war on USA? pretty much nothing. France can easily defend Louisiana, sans that pesky problem of Britain controlling the seas, if they wanted. Even with Britain on US's side (and remember the two are not the best of buddies at the time), the US is NOT taking New Orleans by force IF France wants to keep it. It's not ASB, technically, but realistically the US is not invading Louisiana and France is not invading the US. (edit - hence what happened OTL. But, hand wavium makes for some sort of incentive to take or hold ground, the US does NOT have the power to expand by force, but is very, very vulnerable to assault. the US can, however make life very difficult for anyone looking to occupy US soil. This is also pre 1805 Trafalgar, so France still has some semblance of a navy, and hand wavium wants to put resources into North America instead of dominating Europe)
 
Last edited:
Fully agreed. But to the point of this post, if Napoleon wanted to attempted a failed invasion of the USA, he has the launchpoint.
Yes, but launchpoint with what? Any army being sent to or from New Orleans is going to be ridiculously vulnerable to the Royal Navy once the Peace of Amiens eventually collapses - and a rumoured Napoleonic campaign in Louisiana would make the peace collapse even faster. Even if Napoleon landed an army in New Orleans and marched North - into what? There's nothing there, it's a void. Few roads, the Mississippi is the main method of travel in the region and there are few if any towns at that period. I think that another thread looked at this before and concluded that a few Groignards might survive as walking skeletons in Tennessee, but that everyone else would die along the way.
 
Top