Depends. Is it in Britain's interest to let Napoleon act freely in Europe? My knowledge of European history is spotty at best, but an offer doesn't necessarily need to be accepted, or followed. And Napoleon wasn't naive, to doubt that Britian might agree but act later anyway.
WI France hadn't sold the Louisiana Territory?
- Thread starter Locke
- Start date
Depends. Is it in Britain's interest to let Napoleon act freely in Europe? My knowledge of European history is spotty at best, but an offer doesn't necessarily need to be accepted, or followed. And Napoleon wasn't naive, to doubt that Britian might agree but act later anyway.
France's record of settling colonies was extremely poor.
The US, as a comparison, managed to go from nothing to 300K in Kentucky in fifteen years and no less than six states in a six year period, requiring an absolute minimum of another 400K.
When the Mexican War began the US had tripled the total population in a generation.
The US, as a comparison, managed to go from nothing to 300K in Kentucky in fifteen years and no less than six states in a six year period, requiring an absolute minimum of another 400K.
When the Mexican War began the US had tripled the total population in a generation.
Maybe if France offered something else beneficial to the UK, in addition to selling Louisiana. Like, allowing Britain legal, as well as the de facto control they already had, of Dutch colonies, and giving them French colonial cities in India. Something like that to entice Britain to have more faith in Napoleon and in the new France he had built.
Or, possibly an alliance treaty, due to both having similar socially liberal and democratic ideals. As long as Napoleon contains himself to Continental affairs and Britain is allowed free reign of the Oceans, I don't see any reason for Britain to really see France as a major threat, especially if they can benefit from a French-ruled continent.
Selling it to Britain may have been more devilish than
selling it to the US, for Napoleon's own strategic purposes.
True, selling to US strengthened the relatively pro-French Jefferson government, which theoretically made Britain have to deal with a larger and presumably stronger neighbor.
OTOH, had Napoleon somehow gotten Britain to purchase the territory he not only would have been getting money from a probable future enemy, he also would have been embroiling the UK more deeply in conflict with the US. UK possessions would have surrounded the US on all sides, the US would be surly about the British control of N.O., and it would have made later wars more bitter and protracted, because the prize of N.O. would have been more vital to the US than Canada was in OTL, and because the UK's massive frontage would have given it plenty of defensive headaches, and offensive options against the US, especially the western US.
The trick would have been convincing the British to buy it.
Heck, maybe Napoleon's net situation would have been better if he had forsworn a quick buck and the British ended up deciding to take N.O. themselves. IT could have cost the British more later.
selling it to the US, for Napoleon's own strategic purposes.
True, selling to US strengthened the relatively pro-French Jefferson government, which theoretically made Britain have to deal with a larger and presumably stronger neighbor.
OTOH, had Napoleon somehow gotten Britain to purchase the territory he not only would have been getting money from a probable future enemy, he also would have been embroiling the UK more deeply in conflict with the US. UK possessions would have surrounded the US on all sides, the US would be surly about the British control of N.O., and it would have made later wars more bitter and protracted, because the prize of N.O. would have been more vital to the US than Canada was in OTL, and because the UK's massive frontage would have given it plenty of defensive headaches, and offensive options against the US, especially the western US.
The trick would have been convincing the British to buy it.
Heck, maybe Napoleon's net situation would have been better if he had forsworn a quick buck and the British ended up deciding to take N.O. themselves. IT could have cost the British more later.
Do you realize how that sounded?
You just had France try and sell virtually every semi-important territory she's ever won. For what? To give Britain near absolute master over another continent? It is in France's interest to give Britain a rival. It is not in Napoleon's interest to solidify Britain's power position, or to give away France's money makers in India and elsewhere.
The nations of Europe did not go around begging the US to buy their colonies and territory for pennies an acre. Nor did the rest of the world beg to be made part of the British empire, selling valuable lands at much less than their worth.
And Napoleon definatly did not go around trying to appease his british overlords with tempting territorial concessions.
Interesting that you point out the US still had vast areas of land then expect them to travel overland for hundreds of miles to fight a powerful enemy for backwoods. I am not presuming all of Louisiana being filled up overnight but some increases could have occurred. Given how difficult things would be for the Americans trying to advance overland any additional handicap could be decisive.
I did say if Napoleon was more intelligent. Such a policy, especially avoiding further major conflicts in Europe was in France's interests. he already had a large degree of dominance in Europe, but not necessarily so great as to be certain of prompting other powers to unify against him. It took a few more years of arrogance and autocratic behaviour to achieve that. Given the feeling in Britain at the time I think Napoleon could have had peace if he had been more responsible. [Admit that wouldn't have been the Napoleon we know]. Without Britain and especially with the continued mistrust between the three main continental powers the avoiding of major conflict in Europe could have been possible.
Steve
On this point Dean and me are in full agreement. Britain both wouldn't and couldn't give Napoleon a free hand in Europe. It would have been fatal to our survival, both militarily and economically. Furthermore I can't see Napoleon, being the man he was, being able to agree to a free hand outside Europe to Britain and keeping his word.
Steve
Max Sinister
Banned
Yes, his system depended on war booty for his soldiers. If he'd stop conquest, how to keep the system?
Their are short-run tactical problems, and long-run strategic problems. In the short run (10 years? Less?), not having New Orleans wouldn't matter, because there would still be cheap land. However, once the land fills up to a point, there wouldn't be any safe chance of spreading the US boarders west with new immigrants. I've gone on and on about why the US was about to attack, but here's the dilemma again. The US can send settlers west past the Appalachians, but there is no guarantee that those gains won't be stripped away by the holder of New Orleans.
In that sense, which has the higher cost? The cost (likely aleiviated by a British alliance) of attacking a small but distant city, or cutting off western expansion in the future? It's the same kind of delima the US faced when their attack against the Race was discovered in the World War series; pay a sharp price now but keep future opportunities, or take a short-run cheap plan while crippling yourself in the future?
Which touches on the crux of the problem. If it wasn't Napoleon, how far could France have gotten by this point? Didn't he come to power and restore order in Frane through a coup? Would some other person be able to carpe diem in such a manner?
Plus, I don't agree that war was necessarily not in France's interest (or smart, but I don't know the feel of the time period). It would cost, to be sure, but if he wins and his enemies lose more, France's relative power would be much greater to such a degree that it could easily be worth it. If Napoleon wins completely on Europe, he can embargo Britain much more effectively than the US's Jefferson could ever have done. That should break Britain and leave Napoleon and France the titan of the world.
There were too little French settlers there,and France didn't have any substantial profits from the colony, so the deal with the U. S. over Louisianne was inevitable. However, if you want that there was Les Republique Louisianne in North America, then you should have a POD approximately in mid XVII century, which would have allowed the successful colonization of the land by French.
Dean
That is an argument for why its in the US's long term interests for obtaining New Orleans, by some means or another. [Presuming you think continued continental expansion is a good thing.] Its NOT an argument for them being able to do it in the event of no renewal of the war with Britain. Your talking about driving from very good defensive positions the most powerful military state in the world. True, even with peace in Europe it can not send more than relatively small forces to the Americas but relatively small in Napoleonic French terms is probably enough to storm through the US let alone hold a major river against the small forces that the US could send that far west. As you say yourself New Orleans is the key and how the hell are the US going to take that without logistical support, in the face of French military and naval superiority?
he seized power by pretty much a coup. After that his 1st series of wars as emperor were pretty successful. It was only from about 1807 that the empire really started struggling under the strain of the constant wars and the resistance his actions were building up. However we were talking about if France doesn't sell and war with Britain doesn't resume. Could be that having restored France as the dominant power in Europe he has the sense to be satisfied. Or that another general is the one who takes over. [Nearly was another one]. Or he dies or something ~1801 and someone else takes over. Plenty of ways what we're discussing can come about. What I don't see is how the US can conquer the region under those circumstances.
At this period of time France had become the seat of a power larger and more formidable than any empire in western Europe since Charlemagne. They had annexed or as protectorates modern Netherlands, Belgium, most of the German Rhineland, Switzerland and much of northern Italy. They had various allies and friendly states while opposition to the east was split between Austria, Prussia and Russia, the former two as hostile to each other as France. Although pretty dictatorial Napoleon brought much needed peace and stability to France and kept many of the reforms of the revolutionary period that freed up much capability. Britain was still deeply mistrustful but the Whigs, long out of power, were still hoping for pace and Britain was tired of a long war that had so far been fairly unsuccessful.
There is the problem that the army and to a degree the state had gotten reliant on loot. However much could have been eased by disbanding much of it and/or finding new occupations, such as guarding and developing the western territories. France spent an immense amount of the latter wars and drained the country dry, both in funds and blood by the end.
Historically Napoleon did try and go for total victory as you suggested. However every war generated further hostility to French domination and their behaviour. Each one caused more and more resistance and after Britain resumed the conflict it hounded France with increasing success and denied it access to the resources beyond Europe. It might have been possible given a lot of luck and more skill than Napoleon possessed as a diplomat but highly unlikely that they would have succeeded. Also, consider if Napoleon had been a successful megalomaniac and taken over most of Europe including Britain, say by 1815. As well as reclaiming Canada don't you think he would have reopened the question of Louisiana?
Steve
Good discussion - anybody have a map of the European
situation during the Peace of Amiens.
Also wasn't the breakage of Amiens redundant by both the UK. Both were violating terms, both wanted to go back to full-scale war to achieve some goals as soon as they felt ready, and if one of the two powers (say France for instance) was completely into abdiding by it the other would have restarted the war anyway.
Isn't Britain mechanically, inevitably the enemy of any large European state that controls Belgium?
situation during the Peace of Amiens.
Also wasn't the breakage of Amiens redundant by both the UK. Both were violating terms, both wanted to go back to full-scale war to achieve some goals as soon as they felt ready, and if one of the two powers (say France for instance) was completely into abdiding by it the other would have restarted the war anyway.
Isn't Britain mechanically, inevitably the enemy of any large European state that controls Belgium?
One: It is an argument. Every country with an ounce of sense uses its means to further its interests.
Two: New Orleans isn't that good of a defensive position, was very small, and had few people present. It isn't a fortress city, merely a strategic city. One has a tactical advantage; the other not so much. If anything is going to be defended, it would be the profitable Caribbean colonies that are also in reach of the US.
Three: Should Napoleon even try to mount a campaign in America, he would be making several mistakes on a strategic level.
-He would be turning his attention from Europe, the only thing he really cares about (as history has shown), and towards something he doesn't even control. He will have stretched supply lines with no real base, be vulnerable to British naval superiority, have poor lines of communications, and basically face all the problems Britain faced in the American Revolution tenfold.
-He would quckly make a US-Britain alliance faster than anything else. Britain won't want any threat to Canada, which is what a Napoleonic army in America would be. Having the US gain New Orleans is a win-win for Britain, as running interferance would both all but insure the US success and weaken Napoleon (who the British don't care to appease). That's one less potential trading partner for Napoleon when the war with Britain comes, and one more ally for Britain.
-Napoleonic tactics of big even lines don't work well in North America, because much of the east is wooded, hilly, and near impossible to arange big formations on. And when you consider what the US did to british formations marching through woods in the Revolution, Napoleonic tactics will soon meet "unsporting" and "cowardly" american woodsman tactics. Unless, of couse, Napoleon is going to be foolish enough to only be defensive around New Orleans, in which case he can't hit anything importnat.
-At the time, the US had one of the biggest merchant marines of the world. It was only broken over Jefferson's stupid Embargo Act and the abuses of by Napoleon and the British. A war would mean no Embargo Act, no British seizures (good relations/alliance and all that), and the makings of a significant US navy to fight the French supply lines. And since Britain wouldn't be sad to see Napoleon bloodied, "volunteers" and assistance via Canada are perfectly likely.
This just goes to support my point that Napoleon was Europe-focused, and thus unlikely to do much over in America. And successor's would fase the same issues I pointed out above.
Once again, suggests that Napoleon is Europe focused. He has no benefit to a distraction in New Orleans. And just because Britain wants peace doesn't mean that it will give France a free hand. The US and USSR wanted peace with eachother, but supported client states and allies opposed to the other. Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba, South Korea, the list goes on.
Come now, how long would it hold together without a military tradition/victories? If France doesn't have future victories to offer its clients, then pretty soon those people aren't going to stick around. Nations/groups held together by military might need war to stay whole.
We know, through historical documents, that the US was going to seize it if it wasn't sold. We know, though history, Napoleon was only interested in Europe. If anything, it only suggests that even if he did decide to pursue a costly war with the US over uncontroled territory that wasn't worth the price paid, he'd quickly get side tracked by events in Europe, be unable to spare the resources for anything in America, and get handed a defeat by the US or else face the cost in gold, resources, and manpower of defending something so far away. This would cause France troubles sooner rather than later.
Better suited for another topic, since this is about New Orleans. With no other POD, Napoleon will still get beaten. Sooner, if he wastes resources on a backwater no one lives in. If he goes to war with the US, Sam Fulton won't be offering the steam boat. Without the steam boat, invasion of Britain is near ASB. In fact, the conquest of most of Europe is near ASB. Especially since a Britain-aligned US would pick up some of the slack for losing European trading partners.
Not really. Even after losing the wars, France still got to keep a significant empire. Britain would be no exception. Quebec may be free/recolonized, but there are many more areas (ie India) that are worth the efforts to claim, and Canada isn't really one. Especially since Britain may immitate France and "give" Canada to the US, on secret treaty to keep it away from a potential negotiating table.
Even assuming he does ASB manage to win, Napoleon's first interest is to gain control over his new gains, keep others from aligning against him, and otherwise not waste energy in unproductive fields. Demanding a city that was quickly swamped by another nationality over 10 years ago would be pretty low on the list.
If you're going to have France even have a hope of keeping New Orleans, you'll need a POD so far back that the setting of this tread is no longer an issue. Otherwise, it's in Napoleon's best interest to get rid of baggage for cash and to focus on the real prize. People who try and get greedy (like he did) end up biting more than they can chew. This is the same case for the dispute over New Orleans. It's worth less than nothing now, will be worth less than nothing for untold decades even it is held, and he's planning for a big fight. Why bother with swampland and mountain men?
I wrote and read so many essays and analysies on westward expansion that I've become quite stubborn on my stance towards North American geopolitics.
Which isn't so bad, because like Tielhard with Trent I have a good understanding of both North American strategic geopolitics and the time period. But it does cause me to be quite firm in my stance, pointing out the minor details and such with little compromise.
My basic stance is that New Orleans is one of those things that would have happened one way or the other, with virtually no chance for change unless massive changes are done far back in the past. New Orleans, one could say, is my version of the British response to that-marine-mammal-that-must-not-be-named.
Hey, I just though of a new self-title!
King Thomas
Banned
How about if he sells everything except New Orleans and a small area around it, and garrisons New Orleans heavily?
Doesn't work because it isn't in the US game plan. In fact, this is the exact opposite of what the US originally tried to do.
The US originally offered to buy New Orleans and the immediate surroundings for $10 million. Knowing that the entire territory of New Orleans (the same size as the US at the time) was worth even less without New Orleans, Napoleon offered the entire territory for $15 million.
Remember, the whole idea of the Louisiana purchase is for New Orleans. No New Orleans = No Deal, and the attack commences.
(As a side note, Jefferson was somewhat opposed to a purchase treaty for New Orleans becuase he felt both that the Constitution did not allow such a purchase and that such a treaty would imply that France had a right to the lands in the first place.)
Wait, you mean there could have been a Mexico with a large Anglo component, a la For Want of a Nail, if only the Mexicans been more liberal with their immigration policies?
Even without the topical irony, that seems too interesting to be true. If it's plausible, I demand more AH that feature a Mexico with a large Anglo minority.
Very serious. Mexico tried to close immigration to all but a desirable few who would be both law abiding and of the proper religion (Catholic). But with no men to enforce the ban, it was actually counterproductive. The only people who follow a non-enforcable ban are the law abiding people who wouldn't be likely to rebel in the first place. The people who don't follow a ban are by definition lawbreakers; they are the ones who would be likely to break even more laws and likely to revolt.
(Which is why I am opposed to strict immigration laws, btw. American history has shown that not only are immigrants commonly especially patriotic in order to fit into the national society, but in the case of the US they also commonly forget about what country they originally came from.)