No Purchase

Highlander

The key point of those 3 is continued peace with Britain. Although as some posters have said that basically means a radically different Napoleon. If he doesn't have a lasting peace with Britain then Louisiana falls, either to Britain or the US.

The other two are less important. Would be far more possible if either Dessalines dies and the rebellion in Haiti collapses or probably better Napoleon decides to recognise the slaves as free, which would cause tension with other powers but avoid the costly battle that occurred OTL. Otherwise he will probably have to send more troops to guard Louisiana, although that is not too great a problem if he decides to avoid war with Britain.

Peace with the US is far less of a problem. Provided he has peace with Britain Napoleon can easily reinforce Louisiana and threaten/attack the US main coast if it causes problems. The latter would be suicidal to attack France under those conditions.

Similarly I am dubious about the US flooding the region with settlers. With the exception of Texas US westward expansion was militarily led with the army clearing the land for the settlers. This will not work west of the Mississippi as the Indians on their own will be able to handle most settler intrusions and the Americans are going to have to build and maintain a [for them] huge army to fight France. [Both to have something struggle overland to seize areas and to try and defend the coast and their main settlements against the blockading French forces].

The difficultly is having a lasting peace between Britain and France. Possibly Napoleon decides to expand in the Americas by settling and securing Louisiana, although in the longer term that could cause problems with the locals. Or even he dies off and a more responsible leader takes over France.

Steve

I'm not so sure about your thoughts on a Franco-American War. For that war, the War of 1812 would seem to be a good baseline (major European power vs. US). That war ended in a stalemate and Britain had far more advantages (larger navy, Canada as base, etc.).

France will be fighting very far away from home and the only major city worth defending (New Orleans) is extremely close to the border. While teh war might eventually end up in the stalemate, I wouldn't describe it as suicidal for the Americans (who will also be doing well since New England won't be as damaged economically).

The other factor is if Napoleon gets bogged down against America, the other European powers will probably come after him, and then he's in trouble.
 
I'm not so sure about your thoughts on a Franco-American War. For that war, the War of 1812 would seem to be a good baseline (major European power vs. US). That war ended in a stalemate and Britain had far more advantages (larger navy, Canada as base, etc.).

France will be fighting very far away from home and the only major city worth defending (New Orleans) is extremely close to the border. While teh war might eventually end up in the stalemate, I wouldn't describe it as suicidal for the Americans (who will also be doing well since New England won't be as damaged economically).

The other factor is if Napoleon gets bogged down against America, the other European powers will probably come after him, and then he's in trouble.

LightInfa

The French have a problem with logistics but also have bases in the region and experience of sending armies and fleets to the America's. It won't be easy but perfectly possible.

You need to remember:
a) 1812 is not a good comparison because Britain was fighting Napoleon for the duration of the war. France at this point has a degree of stability in Europe and hordes of troops available. Its navy is smaller than Britain's but still easily enough to blockage the US ports and sweep their trade from the seas.

b) New Orleans is very close to the border but that border is pretty far from the American centres of population. The US to maintain an army in the region would have to move and supply it by sea - not possible once the fleet arrives, down the Mississippi - a long route with little support, or overland from Georgia, a huge problem even without the various tribes in the way. They may manage to seize it by a surprise attack but supporting the occupying force afterwards could be bloody difficult.

c) New England will face the sort of blockade that it suffered in the latter stages of the 1812 conflict. It could also well face actual invasion, along with the rest of the US. Not talking about prolonged occupation with intent to permanent conquest. What if France operates 2-3 armies of say 15-25k men raiding coastal possessions burning and looting until the Americans cry uncle.

d) I very much doubt Napoleon would go to the Americas himself. He has plenty of skillful Marshall's and while a lack of central command will probably result - thinking of Spain here - that could be less significant in the wider reaches of the US. Also, presuming he doesn't look to expand in Europe - and we could see this as him looking to develop French interests overseas, then after revenge for the sneak American attack - there is little likehood of anyone else upsetting the applecart in Europe by attacking him. Most of the European monarchies will be happy with the French distracted by a distant war in N America.

e) Not to mention Spain is already closely linked with France and the Spanish are getting concerned about American designs on Florida. Hence you could see Spain getting involved, supplying more bases and naval power.

As I said the key point would be France avoiding clashing with Britain. If it does then you could see a 2-5 year war, depending on how persistent the US are. A lot of destruction putting back US development. France paying a lot of money for the conflict and possibly bleeding off a good bit of French expanionism with far less destruction to Europe. Probably some border changes with areas east of the Mississippi still largely Indian controlled coming under a French protectorate. You could well see Tecumseh becoming a French ally.

If the French did get too dominant you might see Britain intervening but it, like a lot of continental Europe, have a lot to gain from the US distracting French attention from Europe. The only downside that could occur for Britain is that the French, from their operations in blockading the US, could develop a markedly more capable navy, although probably a smaller one because of the drain on the French treasury. [A lot less to loot in the US to keep the French war machine fuelled].

Steve
 
LightInfa

The French have a problem with logistics but also have bases in the region and experience of sending armies and fleets to the America's. It won't be easy but perfectly possible.

You need to remember:
a) 1812 is not a good comparison because Britain was fighting Napoleon for the duration of the war. France at this point has a degree of stability in Europe and hordes of troops available. Its navy is smaller than Britain's but still easily enough to blockage the US ports and sweep their trade from the seas.

b) New Orleans is very close to the border but that border is pretty far from the American centres of population. The US to maintain an army in the region would have to move and supply it by sea - not possible once the fleet arrives, down the Mississippi - a long route with little support, or overland from Georgia, a huge problem even without the various tribes in the way. They may manage to seize it by a surprise attack but supporting the occupying force afterwards could be bloody difficult.

c) New England will face the sort of blockade that it suffered in the latter stages of the 1812 conflict. It could also well face actual invasion, along with the rest of the US. Not talking about prolonged occupation with intent to permanent conquest. What if France operates 2-3 armies of say 15-25k men raiding coastal possessions burning and looting until the Americans cry uncle.

d) I very much doubt Napoleon would go to the Americas himself. He has plenty of skillful Marshall's and while a lack of central command will probably result - thinking of Spain here - that could be less significant in the wider reaches of the US. Also, presuming he doesn't look to expand in Europe - and we could see this as him looking to develop French interests overseas, then after revenge for the sneak American attack - there is little likehood of anyone else upsetting the applecart in Europe by attacking him. Most of the European monarchies will be happy with the French distracted by a distant war in N America.

e) Not to mention Spain is already closely linked with France and the Spanish are getting concerned about American designs on Florida. Hence you could see Spain getting involved, supplying more bases and naval power.

As I said the key point would be France avoiding clashing with Britain. If it does then you could see a 2-5 year war, depending on how persistent the US are. A lot of destruction putting back US development. France paying a lot of money for the conflict and possibly bleeding off a good bit of French expanionism with far less destruction to Europe. Probably some border changes with areas east of the Mississippi still largely Indian controlled coming under a French protectorate. You could well see Tecumseh becoming a French ally.

If the French did get too dominant you might see Britain intervening but it, like a lot of continental Europe, have a lot to gain from the US distracting French attention from Europe. The only downside that could occur for Britain is that the French, from their operations in blockading the US, could develop a markedly more capable navy, although probably a smaller one because of the drain on the French treasury. [A lot less to loot in the US to keep the French war machine fuelled].

Steve

a) Yes there is not a currently a European War, but France can't commit large forces to the Americas, as they don't want Austria, Prussia, etc. attacking while a good deal of men are in America. This alone I think will keep the war on a more limited scale.

b) That's a good point, but France will equally have a hard time attacking it since New Orleans isn't very close to any major French bases. France will have to a supply an army almost wholly by sea across the Atlantic Ocean. I do not think they will be able to maintain a very large force.

c) First of all, that's 75,000 men who won't be able to protect France in case of a renewed coalition, and if Britain enters a new war against France, those 75,000 men probably aren't going to come home. Those risks are going to be factored against the gains, and there aren't too many apparent gains. In addition, where are these men attacking from. I find it hard to believe that the French can maintain 75,000 men all at sea at the same time raiding the East Coast. The closest bases would be in the West Indies, so supplies will be haphazard, and casualties will be hard to replace. Yes, they might be able to live off the land, but that's unpredictable, and will be increasingly less dependable as the Americans get their act together.

d) You must of misunderstood me, I wasn't talking about Napoleon going directly to America, more using Napoleon as a standin for France. Also, the European powers will be happy with a distracted France because they can take advantage of that. I'm not very knowledgable about the situation for the European powers, but this seems like a very Second
Coalition-esque situation where the European powers see a French army away from the homeland and take advantage of it.

e) Yes Spain will like to see American designs on Spanish territories curbed, but they're not all too fond of France either. I don't think that their aid would be all that reliable.
 
a) Yes there is not a currently a European War, but France can't commit large forces to the Americas, as they don't want Austria, Prussia, etc. attacking while a good deal of men are in America. This alone I think will keep the war on a more limited scale.

I'm not talking about a large army, by Imperial France's terms, but it is a large one by American terms. Coupled with the overwhelming naval strength the French will be able to cripple the Us economy.

b) That's a good point, but France will equally have a hard time attacking it since New Orleans isn't very close to any major French bases. France will have to a supply an army almost wholly by sea across the Atlantic Ocean. I do not think they will be able to maintain a very large force.

There is a large amount of rich lands they can live off. Also why do you presume that the French will seek to re-take New Orleans directly? Far more likely they will seek to hurt the US until it withdraws. [Or possibly knowing Napoleon he will try both but he has the resources to at least attempt that]. Can the US keep troops in a hostile New Orleans without easy supply once the French cut their sea lines?

Don't forget that the French have bases in the Caribbean and off Newfoundland and can probably seize positions in the continental US as there's no way the US can defend it all. They might well also be able to obtain bases from Spain.


c) First of all, that's 75,000 men who won't be able to protect France in case of a renewed coalition, and if Britain enters a new war against France, those 75,000 men probably aren't going to come home. Those risks are going to be factored against the gains, and there aren't too many apparent gains. In addition, where are these men attacking from. I find it hard to believe that the French can maintain 75,000 men all at sea at the same time raiding the East Coast. The closest bases would be in the West Indies, so supplies will be haphazard, and casualties will be hard to replace. Yes, they might be able to live off the land, but that's unpredictable, and will be increasingly less dependable as the Americans get their act together.

Any force the French commit to the Americas would be vulnerable to Britain re-entering the war. However your talking about an unprovoked attack on Imperial France by the US. Even if it isn't practical do you think Napoleon will sit on his hands after that!

Also I'm not taking about a single army. There could be a number of such forces, raiding different areas to keep the Americans off balance.

Also, we're talking about Imperial France at the start of the 19th century. It like most other nations of this time will probably see the troops as ultimately expendable, even if things don't work out as planned.

d) You must of misunderstood me, I wasn't talking about Napoleon going directly to America, more using Napoleon as a standin for France. Also, the European powers will be happy with a distracted France because they can take advantage of that. I'm not very knowledgable about the situation for the European powers, but this seems like a very Second
Coalition-esque situation where the European powers see a French army away from the homeland and take advantage of it.

The forces France are likely to send will be powerful but not critical and given that the French have mauled the other nations pretty badly and many people in most nations want a period of peace its likely they will be glad to see France distracted but more likely to be nervous about starting a new conflict unless and until the French look seriously overstretched.

e) Yes Spain will like to see American designs on Spanish territories curbed, but they're not all too fond of France either. I don't think that their aid would be all that reliable.

They continue to be allies to the French for another half decade. Furthermore France can offer more and threaten far more than the US can.

Steve
 
In 1803, the Governor of Mississippi was preparing to send in the Militia to take New Orleans, There were fewer than 2000 Spanish troops in N.O.

The French didn't take procession of N.O. till November 1803, and the Americans took procession in December.

Governor Claiborne [commissioner of the transfer] fully expected the French/Spanish Creoles to resist the American takeover.

I don't see how this adds constructively to the discussion. Its trotted out a lot but is really meaningless, if the French destined for Haiti had actually landed in Orleans province instead. Then the Governor is not going to make those preparations. If the Mississippians had marched they would have been annihilated by the superior French Garrison.

This becomes a diplomatic matter between Napoleonic France and the USA.
 
I'd always thought this scenario as a win for the USA because I pictured it taking place alongside the European Napoleanic wars, during which the USA could snatch Florida, Louisiana, and some Caribbean Islands while remaining on good terms with Great Britian. However, if it is as described above, with an unprovoked American attack during peaceful European years, then the USA is getting a smack-down. However, I doubt that would happen. We say Jefferson was prepared to invade the territory, but that was because he knew that Napolean was preoccupied in Europe. If that's not the case, then I assume Jefferson wouldn't be stupid enough to invade.
 
Top