Napoleon only sells New Orleans

Jefferson originally wanted to buy just the city of New Orleans and its environs from France. Napoleon being in a giving mood thanks to his dwindling war chest decided to just sell the whole lot. But what if Napoleon decided to just sell New Orleans itself? The reason why he sells only the city isn't important, I'm more interested in the implications.
 
It's one of basically two places that are significantly populated by French in the Louisiana territory. He might as well be handing the whole thing to the Americans on a silver platter.
 
The Americans pull a Texas on the rest of it.

Pretty much because control of New Orleans gave control of the river and through that the rest of the territory. There was no point in only selling the city. Without the city you might as well not have the rest and why not get more money by selling the entire thing.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
New Orleans is the only city of note

Jefferson originally wanted to buy just the city of New Orleans and its environs from France. Napoleon being in a giving mood thanks to his dwindling war chest decided to just sell the whole lot. But what if Napoleon decided to just sell New Orleans itself? The reason why he sells only the city isn't important, I'm more interested in the implications.

Natchez, Baton Rouge, etc were all pretty small, plus New Orleans was, of course, the port for the entire Lousiana Territory, and the most important point on the Mississippi south of the confluences of the Missouri and Ohio.

It would be like selling the front door and not the rest of the house.;) And there's no back or side door.

The Americans would buy it, of course; they were well aware of the importance of New Orleans, and so would be quite confident the entire territory would eventually come under their control.

Which is probably what would happen; the US might even just take "official" control in 1815, without paying a sou to the French...

Best,
 
Last edited:
The only thing you could do is have Napoleon sell New Orleans to the US and lose St. Louis to the Brits. Or even more plausible Napoleon jacks up the price on the Americans.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
LONG way to St. Louis in 1803 from anywhere the British have

The only thing you could do is have Napoleon sell New Orleans to the US and lose St. Louis to the Brits. Or even more plausible Napoleon jacks up the price on the Americans.


It's a LONG way to St. Louis in 1803 from anywhere the British have much control over, and requires crossing US territory (Old Northwest), while the town (such as it is in 1803) is straight across the Mississippi from US territory...and a (fairly) easy trip down the Ohio from Cincinatti...

Time and distance just doesn't work for the British in the interior of North America by this point.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
In 1803, if the interior of the historical

I would tend to agree, but the questions is how much further south will the British get compared to OTL?

In 1803, if the interior of the historical purchase territory is still "French" and war breaks out if the Peace of Amiens fails, there's not much of anything in British North America west of the Soo, and nothing that could actually sustain any sort of expeditionary force west of Lake Erie - and everything west or south of Erie is US territory, so the British aren't coming from the east...

Likewise, if New Orleans IS US territory, they're not coming from the south.

West of the Purchase territory in Spanish territory; north of it is Ruperts Land and the Arctic...

Basically, the British can't get at Louisiana, from any direction...and, frankly, they more important things to worry about a lot closer to home if war breaks out... As they did, historically.

Best,
 
The Americans pull a Texas on the rest of it.

Basically.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the Britih government quietly informed the United States it would not oppose an American annexation of the rest of the territory in a few years, probably butterflying away hostilities between the two later as well. The British lose nothing, they have a hostile territory removed, and increase goodwill in their former colony. Basically nothing but wins.
 
Ooo... If Napoleon only sells New Orleans, then Britain might 'encourage' Canadian forces to move west, building some infrastructure (such as ship yards) on the Great Lakes, and move into the Upper Louisiana territory. Note, for instance, that Astor hasn't set up his furtrading operation at Duluth yet, and the only white presence is the Northwest Company.

Heck, even Fort Dearborn (on the site of OTL Chicago) wasn't founded by the Americans until 1803.

It would be fairly trivial for the Brits to take control of OTL Wisconsin, say, since it was still under British control until the War of 1812 (even if it was legally ceded to the US with Independence).

IF, then a War of 1812 equivalent happens, there would be an existing infrastructure on the Lakes far in advance of OTL (well, meaning any at all), Britain could KEEP control of the Lakes (instead of the US managing to do so), and the US would get curbstomped in the West.

End result of THAT would be Michigan (possibly), Wisconsin and northern Illinois being British, and the border being, say, 40N instead of 49N.
 
It would be fairly trivial for the Brits to take control of OTL Wisconsin, say, since it was still under British control until the War of 1812 (even if it was legally ceded to the US with Independence).

I don't believe this is correct. Under the Jay Treaty the British vacated the western forts in 1796.
 
Under the Jay Treaty, the Brits AGREED to vacate the forts. They didn't in fact actually do it until much later.

I think you are getting the treaties (and their aftermath) mixed up.

The British were obligated to vacate the western forts in 1783 under the Treaty of Paris. They actually did so after the Jay Treaty.

I'm quite familiar with this history - Detroit is my hometown. It was the most important of the fortified settlements on the Great Lakes and was transferred to American control on July 11, 1796.
 
Ooo... If Napoleon only sells New Orleans, then Britain might 'encourage' Canadian forces to move west, building some infrastructure (such as ship yards) on the Great Lakes, and move into the Upper Louisiana territory. Note, for instance, that Astor hasn't set up his furtrading operation at Duluth yet, and the only white presence is the Northwest Company.

Heck, even Fort Dearborn (on the site of OTL Chicago) wasn't founded by the Americans until 1803.

It would be fairly trivial for the Brits to take control of OTL Wisconsin, say, since it was still under British control until the War of 1812 (even if it was legally ceded to the US with Independence).

IF, then a War of 1812 equivalent happens, there would be an existing infrastructure on the Lakes far in advance of OTL (well, meaning any at all), Britain could KEEP control of the Lakes (instead of the US managing to do so), and the US would get curbstomped in the West. [1]

Assuming you are not handwaving future history on the Continent, say hello to the USA refusing all loans to the Entente at best:(, US membership in the Central Powers at worst.:eek: And goodbye to Canada eventually, one way or the other.:(:eek::(

End result of THAT would be Michigan (possibly), Wisconsin and northern Illinois being British, and the border being, say, 40N instead of 49N.

Those territories were indefensible from any advance from the south, and population levels in those areas favor an American advance, not British/Canadian. So too the OTL borders allow for the protection of Canada using the Great Lakes as a barrier.:)

As has been said here, the British had other fish to fry rather than facing a more hostile nation in NA. Such as a seemingly about to erupt new war on the Continent, aborted only by the even greater threat of Napoleon's Hundred Days. These "new territories" would have been placed in violation of two major treaties with the USA (Paris & Jay), and would have threatened the viability of the Treaty of Ghent as well. Add on the level of hatred caused by Impressment, and the Empire can forget all about having the three thousand mile long US-Canadian border being undefended.:(

With the War of 1812 winding down and settled, OTL the USA and Great Britain gave up considerable claims on both sides of the OTL border to get what they wanted. Frex, territory south of 49N for the British, like Vancouver Island and the Lake of the Woods. So too the surrendering by both sides of their more outlandish claims between the borders of Maine & Quebec.

I've seen many suggestions of late of the Canadian Minnesota/Wisconsin/Michigan/Illinois ATL, but none that have seriously addressed the geographical illogic of that idea. 49N puts the border on line with Lake Superior, giving the best of natural defensive lines for both countries, not only for military matters but for combatting illegal cross-border traffic, such as smuggling and gangsterism.:(

EDIT: To put it another way: Where exactly are all these "New Canadians" coming from, in a country as historically population/immigration-strapped as Canada has always been?
 
Last edited:
The main reason for the Louisiana territory was to provide food for the sugar growing colonies in the Caribbean (i.e. Haiti). Without those, Napoleon really had no reason to keep Louisiana. Besides, his war with Britain was just around the corner and he needed money.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep.... amazingly enough, the Emperor had a better

The main reason for the Louisiana territory was to provide food for the sugar growing colonies in the Caribbean (i.e. Haiti). Without those, Napoleon really had no reason to keep Louisiana. Besides, his war with Britain was just around the corner and he needed money.

Yep.... amazingly enough, the Emperor had a pretty good grasp of the realities of time and distance in the Nineteenth Century.

Well, after Haiti, at least.;)

Best,
 
The main reason for the Louisiana territory was to provide food for the sugar growing colonies in the Caribbean (i.e. Haiti). Without those, Napoleon really had no reason to keep Louisiana. Besides, his war with Britain was just around the corner and he needed money.

Pretty much this as well.

Combined with the reality that New Orleans was THE prize of Louisiana, there simply was no reason to keep the rest if Louisiana is later sold.

The interesting question is what if Napoleon flat out refuses to sell, in which case war between France and the United States is likely a few years down the line.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The US and France had already fought once; and

Pretty much this as well.

Combined with the reality that New Orleans was THE prize of Louisiana, there simply was no reason to keep the rest if Louisiana is later sold.

The interesting question is what if Napoleon flat out refuses to sell, in which case war between France and the United States is likely a few years down the line.

The US and France had already fought once; and in 1811-12, the US was probably within a handful of votes of going to war with France, rather than the UK...

Best,
 
Napoleon sells the city and island of Orleans to the US...for and exorbitant price....they want it that bad afterall and his needs are great.

Theoretically, the French could retain the remainder of the terr. With a right of deposit at New Orleans for any goods exported from the territory for a term of their choosing of course, since he is doing the selling...a reasonable time say to build their own river port on the opposite bank...or tantalyzingly on the Atchafalaya, the other now western most distributary of the Mississippi, and former natural mouth of the Red before its capture by the Mississippi. Also, without improvements to control the course of the river, it would already be the main distributary of the entire Mississippi/ Missouri/ Red basin.


Napoleon once he realizes the Haitian project is not going to turn out ( the only way this is likely to have come off in the first place, is that the Haitian project has faired better and not tanked yet), can then sell the remaining terr. to the US. They may or may not be interested at that time given that they only needed the port and there are still plenty of vacant lands on the east bank....for now anyways. The price would have to be right. Or they sell the remaining terr. back to Spain, as the Spanish originally expected them to do in the first place, and engendering their goodwill. Spain will want the French rights of deposit of course so they will have to have been made transferrable by the initial sale to the Americans.

Wouldn't that be an ironic twist. The American's beholden for decades to the Spanish for the right to deposit goods at New Orleans, now being able to thrust the knife back at them...just not as deeply of course. The Spanish would build a new port on the river(s) of course eventually, even if only a few wharves somewhere upriver. The Mississippi is going to remain for all intents and purposes an international river with both parties and I think even the British still enjoying rights to transit the river.

A Texas analogue in this territory may or may not succeed in the 20's. But if successful may prove more viable as an independent than Texas did and simply become another American Republic, modelled loosely on its eastern counterpart. With steamships and riverboat traffic converting to steam locomotion, transit up and down the river is perfectly viable.
 
Last edited:
Top