WI: France doesn't reinstate slavery and its effect on Haiti and Louisiana

[Rush Tarquin]

I'm not well versed on why Napoleon reinstated slavery. One reason I've encountered is that his wife Josephine was a West Indian creole whose family still had interests there, so possibly the POD could involve getting her out of the picture. Whatever the POD, I want to discuss what the effects would be if Napoleon (or whoever else might be ruling France at the time in order to satisfy the WI) hadn't reinstated slavery and had accepted l'Overture and his slave rebels as loyal equals under some extension of French republican ideals.

In particular, I want to discuss what the effect would be on subsequent Haitian and Louisianan history and how this would affect American expansion. Without the loss of Haiti, perhaps Napoleon wishes to hold on to Louisiana, or at least New Orleans and its hinterland while selling the rest to the US. I'd rather the discussion only turn to events in Europe insofar as they would directly affect the situation in the Western hemisphere.

 

[TFSmith121]

Money

that's what he wanted...

Sugar money, in particular; also coffee and cotton, to a degree. Couldn't really make said money in the 1700s (and afterwards) without enslaved labor.

By the late Eighteenth Century, the value of exports from Saint Domingue (Haiti) exceeded those from the US; Haiti actually amounted to one-third of France's overseas trade before the Revolution.

There's a reason the British, French, and Spanish fought back and forth over the greater antilles for almost 300 years; it wasn't for the beaches.

Same reason they sold all of Louisiana, when all the US was originally seeking was (more or less) New Orleans.

Best,

 

[Rush Tarquin]

And was there a plausible alternative to Napoleon who was 'ideologically pure' enough that they might be inclined to forego that revenue and not reintroduce slavery?

 

[fhaessig]

And was there a plausible alternative to Napoleon who was 'ideologically pure' enough that they might be inclined to forego that revenue and not reintroduce slavery?

Yes, the death of Josephine between his being apointed General of the Army of Italy and the reinstatement of slavery. While Napoleon did indeed want the money, it took the slave-owner lobby having direct access to him through Josephine to show the (supposed - it really didn't work out) worth of reintroducing slavery, against the ideals of the revolution, which Napoleon still followed (at least in his own mind) - The French republic had black, freed slaves, generals in charge of important armies and representatives seated in the (mainland) legislative assembly in the XVIIIth century -.

Other solution would be Napoleon getting along well with General Dumas, which would counter-act the influance of Josephine. Maybe even have Napoleon familly weight in on Dumas side as a way to stick it to Josephine (who they loathed)....

 

[Rush Tarquin]

So, effects on Haiti, Louisiana and American expansion...?

 

[TFSmith121]

Probably not - money makes the world go round

And was there a plausible alternative to Napoleon who was 'ideologically pure' enough that they might be inclined to forego that revenue and not reintroduce slavery?

Probably not - money makes the world go round, and Napoleon was THE emperor. There is a reason he rose to power, as opposed to Dumoriez or Lafayette or whoever.

But revolutionary/imperial France needed money (there's only so much that could be made easily by secularizing and seizing, after all), and odds are, someone would have had the bright idea of trying to make it, by recolonizing Haiti, or forcing Spain to transfer Louisiana and/or the Floridas to French control, and then selling one or the other...

With the RN in the picture, the only way the French could even take a shot at something in the Western Hemisphere is in a Peace of Amiens-type interval, and we all know how that turned out.

Best,

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

My "Created Equal," though with Jefferson & Adams switching places, shows one possible scenario for the Louisiana Purchase being made with the territory totally free. Essentgially, no more slave-free balance in the Senate and a couple other states might gradually outlaw it, though there's still a War between the States in my TL and probably otherwise, too. Were Jefferson President he might consider this if Louisiana was already free, as he disliked slavery and I think at this point enough people still figure it'd die out on its own. Plus, Albama and Mississippi were still there to expand to. (And, in some peoples' minds, perhaps Florida.)

The effects on Haiti are interesting. Does Haiti revolt anyway as Spanish colonies began to do? Or was it only the slavery that caused it? If not, that is a *huge* butterfly. The British might expend valuable energy trying to seize it, at least after Trafalgar. (Which might be even more of a one-sided British victory since some French ships might be in the area.)

Could the British seize it with Martinique and Guadeloupe and just give it to Spain as compensation for Napoleon's invasion in the Congress of Vienna? Probably not, as the lack of slavery till then will mean the Spanish will have *lots8 of work to do quelling the freedmen, plus there were already forces in Britain advocating for abolition. I doubt they'd want to give it to Spain, and yet returning it to France... how profitable was it compared to Guadeloupe and Martinique? Would Britain return it? Or keep it?

 

[TFSmith121]

The British actually intervened in Haiti in this same period;

The British actually intervened in Haiti in this same period, in support of a Spanish overland invasion in 1793-94 led by (among others) L'Overture...this was followed by Britist troops from Jamaica landing in the west, where the remaining French collapsed, and a French royalist movement provided some support to the British (and vice-versa).

The British controlled the sea, but not surprisingly, they lost the battle to disease (like every other European power) and were rapidly frustrated by (you guesed it) L'Overture, who switched sides (yet again) over to the French republicans, and then the Haitian nationalists.

An illustration of the effects of disease on non-acclimated European troops (even drawn from other stations in the Caribbean) is what happened to the 1,500-man British force that seized Port-au-Prince from the French republicans in 1794; Thirteen men were killed and 19 wounded, but within 60 days of the victory, more than 600 were dead from yellow fever. A reinforcement contingent of more than 500 dropped to less than 300 within days of their dispatch.

In 1795-96, the British sent another 5,000 European troops; incuding (for example) the 900-strong 82nd Foot, sent from Gibraltar; within three months, 630 men of the regiment were dead due to disease. From January to June, 1796, the 1,000-strong 66th Regiment was down to 198 fit for duty.

Costs of the administration/occupation had risen from L296,000 in 1794 to L2.2 million in 1796; at least one British major general had died from disease, and and couple others retired/recalled; in August, the senior British officer negotiated a truce with L'Overture and the British withdrew in exchange for the Haitians agreeing not to meddle in Jamaica (which had its own revolt going on)....

and so it went into the next decade, until the French finally gave up.

Basically, once the Haitians could see independence was a possibility, they were able to maintain it by a) playing the British, French, and Spanish against each other; b) understanding and using the climate of Haiti to their advantage over the Europeans; and c) fighting like hell on their own ground, even without much in the way of modern weaponry.

Which is something of a model for American (north and south) resistance to the Europeans througout the revolutionary periods (north and south), and was not something the Europeans could defeat on the battlefield.

Politically, possibly, but the European powers generally could not conceive of the idea of a "commonwealth" type political organization, certainly not one that provided political power to enough of the "Americans" (again, north and south) to persuade them to turn away from independence.

Best,