What happens to Louisiana if there's no USA?

Say that constitutional disagreements prevent the USA from being born after the Revolutionary War. Instead of one country, 13 or so.

So, 15 years later, Napoleon decides he can't hold on to Louisiana, not after failing to retake Haiti. But there's no USA to sell the territory to. What to do? Try to cling to New Orleans and environs despite the near certainty of failure? Give it in parcels to the various American republics? Toss it back to Spain to let them sell it out or surrender it to Britain?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Say that constitutional disagreements prevent the USA from being born after the Revolutionary War. Instead of one country, 13 or so.

So, 15 years later, Napoleon decides he can't hold on to Louisiana, not after failing to retake Haiti. But there's no USA to sell the territory to. What to do? Try to cling to New Orleans and environs despite the near certainty of failure? Give it in parcels to the various American republics? Toss it back to Spain to let them sell it out or surrender it to Britain?

Napoleon extorted it out of Spain with the dream of a grand empire, but sold it to the US when France was bankrupt and used the money to raise what was to become the Grande Armee.

Giving it up rather than selling it means no conquest in Germany in 1805...
 
Sell it to Virginia, I would guess - they're the richest state bordering the interior by far.

Between Virginia owning the interior (well, sort of, I imagine eg New York would dispute the legality of the seccession) and the presumably unresolved western claims, that would make for some... fun... interstate relations. :D
 
Virginia would be the only American state interested in buying; whether they could afford it depends on a lot of details. Even if they bought it, however, when the Napoleonic Wars are over British force will be returning Louisiana to the Spanish Crown. Of course, some Americans or other are likely to settle it anyway a la OTL Texas.

I suppose Napoleon could demand not only money but troops from Virginia; since it's likely Jefferson calling the shots, I expect he'd agree. But could Virginians actually make a meaningful contribution to the Napoleonic Wars? My suspicion is, all they can do is make the British dislike them even more.
 
Last edited:
riffing off the idea a little, I made a quick map of eastern North America in this TL. Britain ends up with Louisiana. Florida is... either still nominally Spanish or under British occupation, too. Georgia will not be thrilled at that - if it's still Spanish, they may try to invade.

Mesopotamia is a fragile republic caught between Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York (West New York is part of NY, just labeled to make it clear who holds the territory). It's managed to play off the three rivals long enough to establish itself - so far. Maryland, Delaware and NJ are considering forming a Middle Atlantic Commonwealth to avoid being annexed piecemeal.

Virginia would be the only American state interested in buying; whether they could afford it depends on a lot of details. Even if they bought it, however, when the Napoleonic Wars are over British force will be returning Louisiana to the Spanish Crown. Of course, some Americans or other are likely to settle it anyway a la OTL Texas.

Fun times!

I suppose Napoleon could demand not only money but troops from Virginia; since it's likely Jefferson calling the shots, I expect he'd agree. But could Virginians actually make a meaningful contribution to the Napoleonic Wars? My suspicion is, all they can do is make the British dislike them even more.

Oh, I like the idea of Virginia as a Napoleonic ally. Esp. if Alexander Hamilton's NY sided with Britain. As I said, fun times. :D

Alternate_America.png
 
Last edited:
Mesopotamia is a fragile republic caught between Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York (West New York is part of NY, just labeled to make it clear who holds the territory). It's managed to play off the three rivals long enough to establish itself - so far. Maryland, Delaware and NJ are considering forming a Middle Atlantic Commonwealth to avoid being annexed piecemeal.

It's a very cool idea in general but in 1807 "Mesopotamia" is actually Indiana. (Well, maybe not the easternmost end of it, but I suspect their problems with the Shawnee would dwarf their problems with the Pennsylvanians.)
 
It's a very cool idea in general but in 1807 "Mesopotamia" is actually Indiana. (Well, maybe not the easternmost end of it, but I suspect their problems with the Shawnee would dwarf their problems with the Pennsylvanians.)

True! Hm... How about this? The competition for western land leads to an earlier war under "If we don't push the Indians out, the other republics will!" logic. After defeating Tecumseh, the settlers decide to start their own country instead.

Or I could just add (Disputed) under Mesopotamia on the map...
 
True! Hm... How about this? The competition for western land leads to an earlier war under "If we don't push the Indians out, the other republics will!" logic. After defeating Tecumseh, the settlers decide to start their own country instead.

Or I could just add (Disputed) under Mesopotamia on the map...

(Disputed) seems the good way to go - I don't think it would have the population or national identity to be a real country yet. ITTL, most of its settlers would probably think of themselves as Pennsylvanians &c &c specifically anyways - the settlers would be seen as supporting the various land claims rather than replacing them.
 
(Disputed) seems the good way to go - I don't think it would have the population or national identity to be a real country yet. ITTL, most of its settlers would probably think of themselves as Pennsylvanians &c &c specifically anyways - the settlers would be seen as supporting the various land claims rather than replacing them.

Done!

Maybe in another generation or two, the Mesopotamians will have their day.
 
The upper portions of the Louisiana Territory will probably have more of a Native American character to them. The Lakota and other tribes might slowly absorb French and Anglo-American influence and try to carve their own republics. Louisiana itelf, around New Orleans and perhaps as far north as Missouri, will probably become a French-speaking republic with immigration from Europe and elsewhere in the Americas.
 
I think the odds are good that Britain does get it at some point.
As long as France remains unfree its going to run into trouble with the UK. Hell. Even once its democratic its still not totally unlikely.
Britain would probally let some of the inland areas go to various American republics in exchange for various trade rights and the like or just plain because it saves Britain the bother of having to do something with that land. New Orleans would be wanted by the Brits though.



Maybe Napoleon would realise as per OTL Britain is just going to grab it anyway though and sell it for a reduced price to one of the American nations....cue: an extension of the Napoleonic wars to the Americas. The country which did the buying will be screwed quite badly as Britain and the other Americans swoop in to steal their new lands....which could put them off buying in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Britain doesn't want Louisiana, though; it's legally still Spanish (the sale to France was not valid according to anyone but Napoleon), and Spanish sovereignty is ideal for Britain - they get to wander the place doing as they please, and if something is broken, it's not their responsibility to fix it. The British already have more land than they can settle in a timely manner in Canada. And Australia and elsewhere. Taking New Orleans for the sole purpose of annoying the Americans would be rather out of character and, most importantly, unprofitable.

Otherwise, grand stuff.
 
Britain doesn't want Louisiana, though; it's legally still Spanish (the sale to France was not valid according to anyone but Napoleon), and Spanish sovereignty is ideal for Britain - they get to wander the place doing as they please, and if something is broken, it's not their responsibility to fix it. The British already have more land than they can settle in a timely manner in Canada. And Australia and elsewhere. Taking New Orleans for the sole purpose of annoying the Americans would be rather out of character and, most importantly, unprofitable.

Otherwise, grand stuff.

How would it be for the sole purpose of annoying the Americans?
Control New Orleans and you control a big lot of potential trade. Its a very well located city and Britain would be very interested in holding it.
 
Looking ahead to 1850, my crystal ball shows me this...

After a generation or so, the NY/PA/VA settlers of Mesopotamia formed enough of their own identity to establish an independent republic. There's regional tension, mainly between the New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians on one side and the Virginians on the other, but it's held together. Disputes with Virginia over the central portion of Louisiana are a serious issue now - Virginia is the legal owner, but Mesopotamian settlers are a major element, especially in the northeast areas of West Virginia.

Georgia took advantage of Spain's post-Napoleonic troubles to buy Florida (which had seen many Georgian settlers move in, anyway). It and Carolina are currently wrangling over possession of South Louisiana.

Fear of New York and Virginia leads to unification of the Middle Atlantic republics. Atlantica is a very federal state, with common defense and a single currency the main glue holding it together on a national level.

New York has made out well. New Yorkers have settled Michigan and Superior, which are likely to become states of the Republic of New York before too long, a small New York/Sioux métis population is emerging in Minnesota and the republic has staked a claim to Shoshone Country, although it hasn't pressed the issue much so far.

New England survived a brief uptick in Back to Britain sentiment in the 1810s, but that movement has largely passed. Its main focus is on commerce, and Yankee ships play a major role in the whaling industry and, although less with each year, the slave trade as well. The growing Abolition movement is pressing for the establishment of a freed slave state in West Africa.

Britain secured New Orleans and a modest hinterland. Like Lower Canada, British Louisiana is a Francophone colony. The city of New Orleans has a small English population, but otherwise, there hasn't been much settlement since it was annexed by Britain.

On paper, at least, Russia has secured most of the Pacific Northwest. In reality, it controls a few coastal ports and some trading posts along the lower Columbia.

Northern Mexico is more secure in this timeline, since Anglo settlement is still centered on the vast Louisiana territory. Mexican forts and missions are being built in the east to solidify Mexican control before the Anglo flood reaches it.

Alternate American 1850.png
 
Britain controls the trade anyway. They have the merchant marine and the Royal Navy. Garrisoning the place and administering a civil government is expense for no additional return. It's worth the relatively small expense to boot out the Americans/Virginians one time, but why incur an ongoing expense?
 
Britain controls the trade anyway. They have the merchant marine and the Royal Navy. Garrisoning the place and administering a civil government is expense for no additional return. It's worth the relatively small expense to boot out the Americans/Virginians one time, but why incur an ongoing expense?

The Royal Navy and merchant marine has nothing to do with controlling the Missisipi trade.
You need to control the mouth then you can control what comes in and out of the river system.
If Britain tried to do that without actually owning the mouth...then thats a declaration of war on the owners.
 
Virginia is the most likely to want it and actually pursue it. I agree that Napoleon might sell it at a reduced price to Virginia, if Virginia also supplies soldiers. I am not sure if this is entirely possible, or if Virginia would go for it, but it does not seem that out of character so lets say Virginia agrees.

It be interesting to see a pro-British New York as well and have the Napoleonic Wars develop a North American theater for their claims on Mesopotamia/Indiana. New York needs some of Indiana so it can actually control some of its claims in the west.

The looser here is Pennsylvania who is stuck between both sides. It might try to pull a Switzerland but it is likely to fail. (I am not sure how secure its claims would be on the strip that connects it to the Great Lakes but whatever the result it might loose it). We might see Pennsylvania joining in the Delaware/Maryland/New Jersey Commonwealth to avoid further loss.

At the end of the Napoleonic wars Britain will likely want to give it back to Spain (and argue that the French transfer was illegal). Spain will have no complaint at this, particularly because it is loosing all its Latin American colonies at the time.

But this would piss of Virginia quite a bit. Virginia will push to get some of the territory (at least the chunk south of the Missouri River). Relationship with Britain might not be the best. The Carolinas will fall under Virginia's sphere of influence and Georgia will most likely align itself with Britain so it can ensure its western claims.

Virginia, by no means, can fight Britain and expect to win. So its push westwards will be slow and mostly through politics rather than war. Because it can't expand as fast as it wants settlers will likely push the natives out faster than in OTL. Many will probably end up in Georgia giving it a more "Southern Native American" feel to it.

If Georgia plays its cards right with Britain and Spain it might get Florida (at east West Florida) at some point.

Then you add the factor of the newly independent Mexico, who will lay claim to Louisiana since it was part of New Spain at a point. If so Virginia could pull a Texas: settle it, declare it independent, and annex it.

In the end you mights see an enlarged Virginia up to the rockies and having parts of Texas (although not sure how it will connect it or if it can still beat/buy Mexico for it) . An enlarged Georgia, serving as a British buffer. New York gets most of Mesopotamia/Indiana. British North America being quite large adding most of norther Louisiana to it. With no strong force present there will be no need to confederate so several British North American countries will likely emerge.

New Orleans will remain an independent free port as part of some deal somewhere.

And with no Americans pushing farther west than the Rockies. Mexico will likely retain California for a long time.
 
This thread is an intriguing idea!

To go a step back: Selling Louisiana in parcels is the least likely variant:
As OTL's young US, the states of this world will be interested in New Orleans and hardly anything more.
An exception might be a Northern State like NY, but I doubt they would be willing to pay real money for the mere claim of an unpacified territory.


Moreover, to understand the situation: How come that the states have managed to shake off British rule asunder?
Did they revolt jointly and fall apart after that?

I think that is the most probable variant, with the US having existed for some time.
Otherwise, there would be too much quarrel between different revolutionary states (e.g. borders), and it would be easy for the British to recapture their run-away kitty ...
 
I did some brainstorming for a balkanised American TL and ran into the same problem with Louisiana. Eventually I decided to have Britain invade it and add it to Canada, but when the people in and around New Orleans found out that Napoleon wasn't even going to try to defend them, they rebelled and created the Kingdom of New Orleans (finding some minor Bourbon to be king). The British recognized this new nation, and took the rest of Louisiana for themselves. So Britain (and eventually Canada) gets all of Louisiana minus New Orleans.
 
Top