WI France hadn't sold the Louisiana Territory?
- Thread starter Locke
- Start date
Lets say that for some odd reason, France doesn't sell it, but it sells off other colonies(Probably to the U.S).But France suffers the same fate as it doesa in OTL: they lose. So, in the treaty, the Lousiana Territory is given independence. A few years later (1825?) the U.S attacks them, defeats them, and takes away the Northern part of that area. (round the Dakotas and Nebraska.) from then on, the Louisiana Republic developes a strong military,with its capitol obviously at New Orleans. Texas fights against the Mexicans later, around 1840 (less of them get there, due to Louisiana and the extended travel distance). Louisiana is able to take the Western part of Texas. Texas is never annexed, it remains as the republic of Texas.
Er,one of the main reasons why the French sold it was because,aside from New Orleans,as you said,it was worthless.It was,truly,a largely hypothetical territorial claim.The actual northern and western areas of the Lousiana Territory as we know it today were completely unexplored,noone had any idea where the territorial boundary between the Lousiana Territory and the Dominion of Canada were.Further,the population was way too small to ever serve as a independent nation.If the USA never settles the Lousiana Territory,Texas will never be settled by Anglo-Americans either.So,Texas is mostly uninhabited,and mostly Hispanic.And,if thats true,than there is no separatist movement.The Texan rebellion was entirely carried out by self-described Americans who wanted to join the US,not be a truly independent society.
Interesting, so maybe they split it? The Americans the south half and the British get the north maybe?
I've done a number of posts as to why the US would have taken New Orleans by sword or treaty, and it comes down to simple North American geopolitics.
I can embelish later if anyone wants, but the main point is that, until railroads are common, all trade west of the Appalachians has to be done by river. And as all rivers west of the Appalachians go into the Mississippi, which New Orleans controls, whoever controls New Orleans controls all the land west of the Appalachians. There were very real fears in the early US that whichever nation was holding New Orleans would use the power of trade to strip away all claims west of the Appalachians and 'turn' the western settlers into joining New Orlean's owner.
I can embelish later if anyone wants, but the main point is that, until railroads are common, all trade west of the Appalachians has to be done by river. And as all rivers west of the Appalachians go into the Mississippi, which New Orleans controls, whoever controls New Orleans controls all the land west of the Appalachians. There were very real fears in the early US that whichever nation was holding New Orleans would use the power of trade to strip away all claims west of the Appalachians and 'turn' the western settlers into joining New Orlean's owner.
totally and absolutely Bogus!
there may be fears that what you describe may transpire, but if they do not materialize then there is no rational for a war or even annexation of the region.
Hypothetically if nation A ( controlling the Louisiana terr.) simply agreed to guranatee American access to the port and to guarantee the border at the Mississippi. then I see no reason your US intervention or annexation unless there is agitation from within for that purpose. that depends on the pattern of immigration, and how many of the populace of Louisiana actually identify as " American " as opposed to "Immigrant to Louisiana" and upon the Rule of "Power A" in Louisiana. If that rule tends to evolve into a more representative and democratic tradition akin to the american States or later Britain and the Empire then It is entirely possible for Louisiana to survive as an independent state.
Access to New Orleans after all is not extremely crucial after the building of the various canals to link the Ohio valley to the port of NYC.
One could easily see guaranteed right of deposit evolving to sharing Customs duties at some point and thence once the Canals are built and alternative ports on the gulf coast are built/developed sufficiently to satisfy the needs of the southern states in that regard the US may have no need of New Orleans.
New Orleans may be the better port for their purposes but if other avenues are available there is no reason they could not be used instead...
there may be fears that what you describe may transpire, but if they do not materialize then there is no rational for a war or even annexation of the region.
Hypothetically if nation A ( controlling the Louisiana terr.) simply agreed to guranatee American access to the port and to guarantee the border at the Mississippi. then I see no reason your US intervention or annexation unless there is agitation from within for that purpose. that depends on the pattern of immigration, and how many of the populace of Louisiana actually identify as " American " as opposed to "Immigrant to Louisiana" and upon the Rule of "Power A" in Louisiana. If that rule tends to evolve into a more representative and democratic tradition akin to the american States or later Britain and the Empire then It is entirely possible for Louisiana to survive as an independent state.
Access to New Orleans after all is not extremely crucial after the building of the various canals to link the Ohio valley to the port of NYC.
One could easily see guaranteed right of deposit evolving to sharing Customs duties at some point and thence once the Canals are built and alternative ports on the gulf coast are built/developed sufficiently to satisfy the needs of the southern states in that regard the US may have no need of New Orleans.
New Orleans may be the better port for their purposes but if other avenues are available there is no reason they could not be used instead...
Manifest Destiny people.Tls many make about a rump US and various European colonies throughout America are impossible.Claimed or not,they could never manage to settle to any great degree(aside from southern Lousiana of course,that area still today has a disproportionate ethnic French population.)And never managed to control,patrol,or even explore the majority of it.It was only a matter of time before it became US territory.Same is true for all your Mexi-wanks where the Mexicans hold all the Southwest still.
Having a "mostly Hispanic" population didn't stop numerous other Mexican states from rebelling against Santa Anna. Texas and California are so far away from Mexico City that I think they'd be bound to break off once they have a large enough population, regardless of what ethnicity that population is.
Oh but it is. Spain declining to extend the right of deposit was the impetus for the Louisiana Purchase, but the problem was there all along. If you have a dagger at my juggular, it doesn't matter whether you say your friendly or not. You have too much power over me, and it is in my interest to buy or steal that dagger from you. In regards to trade, New Orleans is that dagger. Remember your geosciences: it's easier to get down stream than up, but it's also easier to go upstream than across mountains by cart without real roads.
This would be a very stupid promise for the US to make. I guarantee not to take advantage of the massive amounts of land you don't even know you have, land which I can settle and you will never be able to. In exchange, you promise NOT to strangle my western settlers, except I have virtually no western settlers now because I promised to respect your borders. What settlers I do have can still be stripped away if you decide to renenge on you promise, in which case I lose my western populace and territory and you lose a scrap of paper.
Since when has immigration worked like that? If you go to a place to settle the land, if anything you're going to think of yourself as a member of "Power A", not "Power A's next door neighbor".
Why would this happen again? Especially when it's not under the control of an representative power? And how can something the size of the current US but with only one city survive as an independent state? I could march on New Orleans, give every person living there 50 square miles, and I'd barly notice anything except that New Orleans was empty.
The Erie Canal was finished in 1825. That's in over 20 years from the Louisiana Purchase. It connected the US to the Great Lakes for barges to go through. Any attempt to to use them as the sole method of transportation requires them to go upstream every single mile.
Now here is a topographic map of the US. Notice all the very nice, conveniant, and big rivers that spread across the continent. Notice how almost every single one of them drains into New Orleans. Notice how those ready made water ways go such a far distance for free. Compare that with the Erie Canal, which took 27 years to build before it was truly useful, was an incredibal expanse, and only went a small distance.
Now what could have been done in about 25 years of controling New Orleans, compared to 0 years of controling nothing. Western expansion was completed by 3 things: wagon, boat, and train. Guess which ruled until the mid 1800s, hm?
I touched on this above. As long as anyone can even potentially cut off New Orleans, western expansion is in peril. Canals are not an adequet substitute, because they are short, expensive, and slow. Even when the Erie Canal was completed, it remained much cheaper and faster to send things down through New Orleans and then put them on a ship up the coast than to raft them upstream. You can get good speed with little effort going downstream and on the sea. Going upstream was hard and went at the pace of one mile per hour.
New Orleans is not just "the better" port. It is THE port for the north american river trade. It's importance can not be understated, and the two inventions that brought New Orlean's reign to an end were railroad and, more importantly, the steamboat which could go upstream at high speeds.
New Orleans remained critical even in the Civil War. The South expected that the northwest, which was dependent on river trade due to a lack of improvements, would be forced to either seceed with the South or to reign in the rest of the North once the South declared independence. Only the river boat and Lincoln's use of federal troops kept the northwest in check.
And conversly, the Union capture of New Orleans was one of the gravest blows to the confederacy. Though the internal rivers remained secure for much longer, without New Orleans much of the CSA's shipping capacity and internal trade was stopped even before it set sail.
About the only thing rivaling the importance of New Orleans in keeping western expansion alive was having any spot on the western seaboard. We went to war for such a spot, and even the west coast wasn't as critical as New Orleans. We could be a power without access into the Pacific. We couldn't be a power without access into the American heartland.
what Dean said. One thing to remember is that the Americans in Paris were not negotiating to buy the whole territory... just New Orleans. They were taken by surprise when Napoleon (seemingly out of the blue) offered them the whole territory for pennies an acre....
The US might settle for control of the Northern parts because of possible fur trade potentialities. If the new "Republic of Louisiana" gives the US free access to the Mississippi and has some sort of free trade agreement with them, I see no reason the US would directly try to annex it. After all, they would have what they wanted. It's win-win.
The whole "Manifest Destiny" thing really caught on in a major scale AFTER we acquired Louisiana and explored way out there.
I think Mike meant that the US would get the southern half (where its main interest was) while Canada would more of the northern section, where the boundary between US, Canada, and Louisiana was nonexistant.
Which would be unusual, since selling land to your enemy is rarely a good idea unless you think you can get it back cheap later. Though a US-Britain war gone wrong could see the US lose more in the Ohio area. Or, in exchange for concessions in the Ohio area, the US makes gain in Oregon.
But New Orleas (and Louisiana), short of massive changes, is going to go to the US. If Jefferson, a loud Franco-phile and believer in no foreign entanglements, was willing to form an alliance with Britain for New Orleans, you know the official position in Washington is serious.
Though Nunya, Mexico keeping the southwest isn't as farfetched as it seems. You'll notice in the map that the New Orleans rivers flow north and north west: perfect for the great plains and Oregon. But the rivers that service most of the southwest (the Rio Grande, the Colorado, and the Brazos) all filter into what would have been solidly Mexican territory. Only the US's spoils in the Mexican-American War allowed most of these rivers to be based in the US. The Rio Grande boundary (VERY disputed by Mexico) was important because it was to south west Texas what the Mississippi River is to the US: the economic lifeblood. Had Mexico not had a decadent army/not gone to war and kept the territory, it would eventually have had a solid grasp on the southwest.
Edit: About the only reason the US wouldn't attack New Orleans by force is if it came under Britain's control. Any other power would likely be a rival of Britain and therefor the US would get Britain's aid/blessing for the adventure. If Britain has it, then it is because Britain has beaten her rivals and become the top dog, in which the US won't have any allies to turn to in order to counter Britain's strength. But this would only happen (much) later than the early 1800s, by which time the US would have attacked.
Last edited:
How early could the US have seized it militarily?
The US military record in the war of 1812 wasn't so hot, until the battle of New Orleans. America on the offensive really sucked in that war.
So, were the failures in invading Canada due to just weak overall US capacity, or due to the fact that they were sending New Yorkers to take territory they didn't really want, and since in New Orleans, you'd be sending KEntuckians and Tennesseans to seize something they'd want, it would have been much easier, even before 1812?
The US military record in the war of 1812 wasn't so hot, until the battle of New Orleans. America on the offensive really sucked in that war.
So, were the failures in invading Canada due to just weak overall US capacity, or due to the fact that they were sending New Yorkers to take territory they didn't really want, and since in New Orleans, you'd be sending KEntuckians and Tennesseans to seize something they'd want, it would have been much easier, even before 1812?
Depends on the circumstances; IE whether Britain will merely run interferance, cutting New Orleans off from support and resupply and leaving it to the US troops, or if Britain can offer naval and logistical support. The biggest trouble would be getting the supplies to the men attacking; at the time New Orleans was a small port town, not a fort. It might hold out for a month or so, but it's not in a very defensible position. For an idea of how a war between France and the US involving New Orleans would go, I suggest the excelent Franco-American War TL, which covers much the scenario we talk about here.
But as for troop efficiency, in the War of 1812 the difference between militia and regulars really showed. Our regulars generally beat their militia, and their regulars trounced our militia on a regular basis. The US relied almost intirely on militia, however, and not very well equiped militia at that. However, the one time it was a battle of only regulars versus regulars (a small clash), the US regulars won, and ever since then West Point cadets wear the uniform of those regulars, giving them the title of the long grey line.
As for New Orleans, that was more a case of preparation versus flawed execution/battle plan. While the defenders were well defended with earthworks that left only their heads exposed, the British were in the open in wide ranks. And when the British attempt to capture the US cannons on the other side of the river failed from the start because it was too complicated with little preparation, and the british forgot the ladders to scale the earthworks...
Nevertheless,those rebellions were rather different.Texas and California were unique in that they rebelled simply because they did not want to be Mexican,because they werent.The others were simply anti-Santa Anna.
All these American proto-states will get absorbed into the USA within a matter of time.Do you seriously think the American settlers that make up most of the settling in the empty northern areas of the Republic will consider themselves "Lousianan"?This country,economically,culturally,whatever,is American.It will join the USA one way or another.