WI France hadn't sold the Louisiana Territory?

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

Up until the revolt itself, Houston and other american immigrants did their best to keep Texas in Mexico. Because of Mexico's screening procedure for admiting immigrants (must become catholic, be Mexican, etc.) most of the legal settlers into Texas were more inclined to stay in Mexico if democratic reforms were made rather than revolt. But, as Santa Anna tried to crack down rather than liberalize, Texas revolted.

Making the Texas revolt a anti-Santa Anna revolt as well.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

From the British perspective this would have been a dream come true. The only Americans truly interested in invading Canada were infinitely more concerned with New Orleans for purposes of trade, commerce and expansion.

If Napoleon doesn't sell, Great Britain gets a North America consisting of a colony(Canada) and an ally(USA). Only a relatively small force is added to Europe but every bit helps and surely the Duke of Wellington wouldn't mind a few thousand more troops at Waterloo. Perhaps a few thousand Americans can also be recruited, in return for a slight misreading of boundary lines?

Why, yes! Clearly West Florida IS rightfully part of Louisiana.​

This costs Great Britain nothing save(perhaps) a small patch of land Spain can't keep anyway and a large territory belonging to the French enemy, all in return for the complete avoidance of any difficulties on the North American continent and perhaps the beginning of a much more harmonius relationship between the UK and US, especially as American attention drifts from Canada to Mexico.

 

[nunya]

Up until the revolt itself, Houston and other american immigrants did their best to keep Texas in Mexico. Because of Mexico's screening procedure for admiting immigrants (must become catholic, be Mexican, etc.) most of the legal settlers into Texas were more inclined to stay in Mexico if democratic reforms were made rather than revolt. But, as Santa Anna tried to crack down rather than liberalize, Texas revolted.

Making the Texas revolt a anti-Santa Anna revolt as well.

I guess so,obviously Santa Anna was not popular in Texas,but I think with the same immigration patterns,and a nice Mexican running Mexico,you still have a rebellious Texas.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

I guess so,obviously Santa Anna was not popular in Texas,but I think with the same immigration patterns,and a nice Mexican running Mexico,you still have a rebellious Texas.

Partially correct, in a sense. I used the qualifier "legal immigration" becuase a good deal of the immigration was illegal. And think about it this way: if you set up a ban on immigrants you don't really enforce, who's going to listen to it? The law abiding potential immigrants who don't want to turn catholic. Who's going to ignore it and move in anyway? The people of disreputable character, who are much more likely to cause trouble and join in a revolt than law abiding individuals. Most of the people clamoring for Texas independence (and US annexation) were illegal american immigrants who couldn't get what they wanted from Mexican authorities.

From the British perspective this would have been a dream come true. The only Americans truly interested in invading Canada were infinitely more concerned with New Orleans for purposes of trade, commerce and expansion.

If Napoleon doesn't sell, Great Britain gets a North America consisting of a colony(Canada) and an ally(USA). Only a relatively small force is added to Europe but every bit helps and surely the Duke of Wellington wouldn't mind a few thousand more troops at Waterloo. Perhaps a few thousand Americans can also be recruited, in return for a slight misreading of boundary lines?

Why, yes! Clearly West Florida IS rightfully part of Louisiana.​

This costs Great Britain nothing save(perhaps) a small patch of land Spain can't keep anyway and a large territory belonging to the French enemy, all in return for the complete avoidance of any difficulties on the North American continent and perhaps the beginning of a much more harmonius relationship between the UK and US, especially as American attention drifts from Canada to Mexico.

Oh, there would have been some friction. The Main boundary dispute, the US-Canadian border line, Oregon. But they would have been toned down abit and may have been determined by who was doing who the better deed.

The British come in and offer naval assistance in New Orleans and (depending on your wank preferance) the Caribbean? The US relents on the Maine boundary dispute, giving Britain it's desired strategic land rout for eastern Canada.

As thanks for the naval help in New Orleans, the US sends men into Europe in time to play a role in Waterloo* and other battles? London is more agreeable to negotiating the western US-Canada boundary, giving more weight to the US claim of 54-40.

Or, if the US is clearly indebted to Britain for more than New Orleans (perhaps some Caribbean prizes), the US-Can. border is moved South in return. I think Britain would keep the Caribbean colonies, but...

*If the US plays a (minor) role in the deciding battle, future propoganda can portray the American entrance as the war-winning omen.


(Also, I seem to remember some AH website had a "visitor's guide to AH" or something, where the US in Napoleonic Wars idea was done. The big US accomplishment was capturing and occupying some French port city for 100 years or so before giving it up, and afterwards the city still celebrates American holidays.)

 

[nunya]

Partially correct, in a sense. I used the qualifier "legal immigration" becuase a good deal of the immigration was illegal. And think about it this way: if you set up a ban on immigrants you don't really enforce, who's going to listen to it? The law abiding potential immigrants who don't want to turn catholic. Who's going to ignore it and move in anyway? The people of disreputable character, who are much more likely to cause trouble and join in a revolt than law abiding individuals. Most of the people clamoring for Texas independence (and US annexation) were illegal american immigrants who couldn't get what they wanted from Mexican authorities.

Right.To understand this situation,you need to realize that at this time,most of northern "Mexico" was very sparsely populated and borders were extremely porous.Many Americans settling the West had absolutely no problem treating the British,Mexican,and earlier French claims as meaningless,which in a lot of ways they were.America was very egalitarian in a lot of ways back then,and it was impossible to enforce illegal immigration,which back then ran the opposite way.

 

[King Gorilla]

Well as already mentioned, America will do everything in its power to gain control Mississippi trade, because control of New Orleans was vital towards the economic control of America's western territories. If America only gets New Orleans, I believe America, or at least American settlers, will continue to expand westwards. However the primary focus of America will not be the west, but Caribean and Atlantic. America would continue to develop as a mercantile civilization (America had the worlds second largest merchant marine during the Napoleonic wars) rather than as a land power. Given this development I would imagine America overall being less powerful, with most of its industrial and economic capital not to mention population centered around the atlantic coast. This America would probably enter into the European alliance system much earlier and would mostly likely participate in the scramble for Africa.

 

[DuQuense]

Expanded US

IF This Butterflies into no war of 1812,
American settlers continue moving into Ontario, New Brunswick, by the late 1820's you begin to have a pro Statehood movement in parts of Canada.

 

[Alratan]

If France hadn't sold Lousianna, I think the British would probably have taken New Orleans before the US could have. They have shorter supply lines (from the Carribean), a regular army, and a much better navy.

There is thus almost certainly an alt War of 1812, but the British have a far superior starting position, as they begin with New Orleans.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

If France hadn't sold Lousianna, I think the British would probably have taken New Orleans before the US could have. They have shorter supply lines (from the Carribean), a regular army, and a much better navy.

There is thus almost certainly an alt War of 1812, but the British have a far superior starting position, as they begin with New Orleans.

Except the US had been making preparations as far back as Jefferson's time, and the British would have to start from scratch. And the only way Britain can get New Orleans is by conquest, whereas the US can buy Louisiana at any time Napoleon needs money. And since Napoleon needed money before his wars and not after...

And King, New Orleans is the only thing of any value in Louisiana. Saying the rest of the land of Louisiana was about as valuable as Siberia might be stretching it, but not by much. And just as someone else's control of New Orleans was a threat to cut off the central America, so would US control cut off central north america to France. Not only does France not have anyone else in Louisiana, but the US can cut off French settlers/shipping whenever it wants. If France tries to do anything, they've given Britain yet another ally to work with with no guarantee for success. No, once New Orleans is in hand de facto US western expansion will result. The only change is that the US would pay less for the same amount, and France will have less money for its wars.

 

[Alratan]

Except the US had been making preparations as far back as Jefferson's time, and the British would have to start from scratch. And the only way Britain can get New Orleans is by conquest, whereas the US can buy Louisiana at any time Napoleon needs money. And since Napoleon needed money before his wars and not after...

Seeing as the WI is that France doesn't sell...

Britain has quite noticeable forces in the Caribbean, and I imagine must have considered mopping up New Orleans, as, as mentioned, its a very strategic location.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Seeing as the WI is that France doesn't sell...

Britain has quite noticeable forces in the Caribbean, and I imagine must have considered mopping up New Orleans, as, as mentioned, its a very strategic location.

Seeing as how if France didn't sell, Jefferson would invade, and with Britain's blessing...

Napoleon, rightly so, saw that he couldn't defend Louisiana from the British when war happened. He had the choice of selling it the the US so he would have the money he desperatly needed to use against Britain, or not getting a dime from the territory and quite easily losing it to Britain or the US.

Now, I'm not saying Britain wouldn't have liked to gain control of New Orleans. But would it be worth the cost? Starting a war they could easily lose in Europe, for the uneasy control of an empty and worthless land? Someone with a English history knowledge should tell what kind of state Britain was in in 1800s, but going around starting major bankrupting wars over tidbits wasn't it.

By this time the US has already commited to getting New Orleans. Peacefully if possible, by war if not. Even no direct alliance with Britain wouldn't have stopped it, as Jefferson would just have used the spectre of such an alliance to keep France from doing anything.

Napoleon has a seperate decision. He can sell it now and finally get some use out of it, or lose it and not get a penny. Keeping it long-term is not in the cards, and losing it to Britain isn't exactly desireable either. But what do you know, here comes the little Americans asking to buy the only good part. If he sells it, he gives Britain a rival on the north american continent, and a stick in Britains eye is always better than a stick in his own...

 

[Grimm Reaper]

France was unable to subdue Haiti, against nothing more than a limited population consisting of the former slaves. How are they going to win a war against the US, especially with the British coming in and severing all supplies and communications at any moment?

Dean summed it up perfectly. Napoleon could take what money he could get, knowing he planned to restart the war with England, and perhaps remove the one issue likely to establish the US as England's ally instead of her enemy. Or Napoleon could simply throw away a potential alliannce and the entire territory.

 

[raharris1973]

So, majority position is that buying it was a waste of money?

Conquest would have been better.

That was Michael Lind's position. He criticized the US for paying for what it could have conquered, and in the process giving a financial shot in the arm to a would-be world hegemon. His projection backwards of the US interest in a divided Asia (US geopolitical interest in WWI, WWII and the Cold War) to the Napoleonic era also was an element of his condemnation Madison's war on the UK. He put Madison in the top 5 worst Presidents for getting into the War of 1812 with such bad preparations and on the wrong side of the global struggle and provoking the burning of the capital.

 

[nunya]

The final word is it might have been better for the US should have just invaded the place and annexed it with Britain's blessing and pledge of support,then the French just have to surrender.Theres no way they can transport this big army the way over there,with the British Navy countering them all the way,and then land it and subdue the whole place.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Conquest would have been better.

That was Michael Lind's position. He criticized the US for paying for what it could have conquered, and in the process giving a financial shot in the arm to a would-be world hegemon. His projection backwards of the US interest in a divided Asia (US geopolitical interest in WWI, WWII and the Cold War) to the Napoleonic era also was an element of his condemnation Madison's war on the UK. He put Madison in the top 5 worst Presidents for getting into the War of 1812 with such bad preparations and on the wrong side of the global struggle and provoking the burning of the capital.

Different, with a stronger anglo-american trend earlier on. Whether that's better is debatable.

It might have had long-run costs that far outweighed the benefits, but that's something we may never know. (One such scenario is a world where a militant US-Anglo alliance occupies most of the world in a joint empire, oppressing the foreign masses for the betterment of their own citizens.

 

[stevep]

France was unable to subdue Haiti, against nothing more than a limited population consisting of the former slaves. How are they going to win a war against the US, especially with the British coming in and severing all supplies and communications at any moment?

Actually it was the mosquito that defeated the French, although the former slaves caused them a lot more trouble than they expected. This could have been crucial as the army sent to do that had been intended to travel to secure New Orleans after performing that 'simple task'.

If France hadn't sold and given that Napoleon's policies were bringing the peace in Europe to a end they would have lost it. Once Britain declared war again and it is doomed. [If for some reason war between Britain and France doesn't break out then the US doesn't have a hope in hell of taking it by force. However I see continued peace in Europe as highly unlikely].

Steve

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Actually it was the mosquito that defeated the French, although the former slaves caused them a lot more trouble than they expected. This could have been crucial as the army sent to do that had been intended to travel to secure New Orleans after performing that 'simple task'.

If France hadn't sold and given that Napoleon's policies were bringing the peace in Europe to a end they would have lost it. Once Britain declared war again and it is doomed. [If for some reason war between Britain and France doesn't break out then the US doesn't have a hope in hell of taking it by force. However I see continued peace in Europe as highly unlikely].

Steve

Hate to break it to you, but the US has a lot of mosquitos as well. And poisonous snakes. No body beats us for poisonous snakes.

As for Napoleon squashing a US attack, I doubt it. Doing so would leave him exposed and distracted from Europe, which is the only place that matters. The dream of Louisiana being the North American French Empire was just that, a dream. Logistics, too much empty space to fill before the steam boat comes around, and so on. ASB intervention or a POD very far back might keep the US from having it, but blocking the US from western expansion for a good while is not the same making the territory solidly French.

 

[stevep]

Hate to break it to you, but the US has a lot of mosquitos as well. And poisonous snakes. No body beats us for poisonous snakes.

A lot but is the southern region as disease ridden as Haiti was? Plus how would an invading US army have been affected?

[/quote] As for Napoleon squashing a US attack, I doubt it. Doing so would leave him exposed and distracted from Europe, which is the only place that matters. The dream of Louisiana being the North American French Empire was just that, a dream. Logistics, too much empty space to fill before the steam boat comes around, and so on. ASB intervention or a POD very far back might keep the US from having it, but blocking the US from western expansion for a good while is not the same making the territory solidly French.[/quote]

I didn't say anything about Napoleon 'squashing' the US attacks. No need for him as he had plenty of good Marshalls. What I said was that if there was no war with Britain the US couldn't take the area. Thinking chiefly of New Orleans and the vicinity but the same applies to the broader region. Without war with Britain France has overwhelming naval superiority. That means they can use SLOC while the US forces have to trudge overland. Through areas still largely populated by the native tribes who largely haven't been defeated and expelled yet. That would be bloody difficult even if the French don't give them any assistance. France, with New Orleans, has control of the Mississippi, which means they can move troops fairly rapidly and easily along it to meet the US forces struggling overland into the region. Also without war with Britain France can easily afford a small force, say 50-60k men to operate in the defence of the colony.

I was thinking of the next couple of decades, which would have been enough to have prevented US expansion to the Pacific probably, rather than holding the area indefinitely. However, if Napoleon had been intelligent enough to have compromised and avoided further wars in Europe he could have used a Roman policy and settled a lot of his veterans. Probably followed by possibly plenty of other colonists, along the river rather than burning off France's surplus population in futile wars.

Steve

 

[Dean_the_Young]

I was thinking of the next couple of decades, which would have been enough to have prevented US expansion to the Pacific probably, rather than holding the area indefinitely. However, if Napoleon had been intelligent enough to have compromised and avoided further wars in Europe he could have used a Roman policy and settled a lot of his veterans. Probably followed by possibly plenty of other colonists, along the river rather than burning off France's surplus population in futile wars.

Steve

Italics: Too much land and not enough people. The US, even by 1812, hadn't even begun to fill up the land it had. Expecting a small fraction of veterans (the youngest, healthiest, most competant and ambitious who are willing to live in backwoods for the rest of their lives) to fill up Louisiana is like expecting to build a defensive wall with small stones and pebbles. You can set up a very small decent defense, or just be ignorred. The Romans made much better conquerers and builders than long-distance settlers. However, the chance that Mexico and Russia might control the western coast is taken. Canada not so much, because US western expansion was the largest impetus to speed up Canadian western expansion.

Underline: Then it wouldn't be Napoleon, nor would it be in France's best interest. What's worth more to France: more influence in Europe (the biggest prize), and a chance to beat her biggest rival, or an almost clearly doomed attempt to settle land very far away that would be incredibly hard to control?

If "Wars are expensive, lets spend money elsewhere" was policy, than no empire would form and the world would be much different.

 

[Hapsburg]

I wonder: If the POD is changed to specifically him not selling to the United States, is there any chance that instead of selling it to the US, he sells it to Britain in exchange for British non-involvement in the coming conflict?