WI Napoleon didn't sold Louisiana to the USA?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Sigh... I wish I could say I was surprised by your response, but I've talked to you before.



Did I ever say it could? I mentioned privateers and the possibility of war elsewhere, namely Canada. Without the american markets, Britain's in trouble.

The US won't go to war with Britain because of New Orleans. It would have been seized fair and square from the French in war. The US was not prepared in 1806 to fight the British - it took years of outrages to rile us up to the point of declaring war, and we only came out of that relatively intact because Napoleon returned.

 

[Ace Venom]

I honestly hate to imagine this, since I am from Louisiana. I'd much rather be under the Confederate government rather than that of the Queen of England. Something about Britain just irks me. I'd hate the idea of being a citizen of the Dominion of Louisiana, but the US just wouldn't be able to keep up the fight in Canada and Louisiana at the same time.

 

[Archangel Michael]

Yes, but where did your ancestors come from? Since I was born in extrem northeast Colorado, I'd been living in Louisiana. But most of my ancestors came from Ireland, so, I'd probally either still be living in Ireland, New York, or on the American frontier.

 

[JLCook]

Britain could have beaten the normal USA around 1860 never mind a USA contained to the 13 colonies (and Florida?).

Talking of Americans in the area causing it to join the US like Texas- won't happen with Britain. There is quite a difference between the free super power of Britain and the rather nasty regional power of Mexico.

The OTL USA of 1860 or so was capable of fielding (wiuth proper mobilization time) and army of perhaps 2,000,000 men, combining manpower that OTL went into both Confederate and Union armies.

A USA, limited to everything east of the Mississippi River would still, by mid 19th century be a very formidable adversary. While there is no question that The Royal Navy was preeminant, Given 50-55 years of planning, and preparation, the possible US Navy would have been a bit much to try and forcibly blockade in it's own ports, like the way the British did to the French in 1793-1815! Also, deploying very powerful armies, armies the size needed to tackle the USA of ~1850 to 1860 would be very, very expensive, would require massive amounts of shipping, ALL of which would need to be escorted!

Looking at a map, everything in the "Louisiana Territory" North of say Present day Memphis is going to present a serious prob;lem for British forces to deploy into! They will have been able to garrison it lightly, but the chances that a British Army of even 30,000 could be in place to defend St Louis is hardly likely!

On the other hand, US Forces will easily be able to atttack across the Mississippi River, throughout most of it's length.

A British base at New Orleans might be easy for the British to defend, and Canada also, but the deep interior or the continent?

 

[David S Poepoe]

As with Bismarck's consideration of the points of "Great Germany" versus "Smaller Germany", I think it would be easy to divide the WI into a "Greater Louisiana" or "Smaller Louisiana" trains of thought.

"Greater Louisiana" - more than likely added onto Canada as part of a large ATL British North America. It would be very hard to defend the greater extent of the border, as mentioned by JLCook. However, there is no reason to consider that immigration to the United States would continue along historic trends if the US is limited to east of the Mississippi. Also there would be those willing to settle there even if a British possession. The Americans themselves have done alot to populate the region since they drove the Native Indians across the Mississippi.

"Smaller Louisiana" - This could very in size from New Orleans and its surroundings to including portions of OTL Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, etc. Provide it sees that only a portion of the historical Louisiana Territory becomes British and there is no hinderance to American settling across the Plains, this should be fairly easy to defend. Good relations in British New Orleans is constantly guaranteed because of the close proximity to Canada (the historic reason why the British and Americans got along so well for so long). Unless some poor reason for a war leads to a major British loss one could expect that New Orleans would remain British for a very long time. It would be analogous to Hong Kong.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

As with Bismarck's consideration of the points of "Great Germany" versus "Smaller Germany", I think it would be easy to divide the WI into a "Greater Louisiana" or "Smaller Louisiana" trains of thought.

"Greater Louisiana" - more than likely added onto Canada as part of a large ATL British North America. It would be very hard to defend the greater extent of the border, as mentioned by JLCook. However, there is no reason to consider that immigration to the United States would continue along historic trends if the US is limited to east of the Mississippi. Also there would be those willing to settle there even if a British possession. The Americans themselves have done alot to populate the region since they drove the Native Indians across the Mississippi.

"Smaller Louisiana" - This could very in size from New Orleans and its surroundings to including portions of OTL Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, etc. Provide it sees that only a portion of the historical Louisiana Territory becomes British and there is no hinderance to American settling across the Plains, this should be fairly easy to defend. Good relations in British New Orleans is constantly guaranteed because of the close proximity to Canada (the historic reason why the British and Americans got along so well for so long). Unless some poor reason for a war leads to a major British loss one could expect that New Orleans would remain British for a very long time. It would be analogous to Hong Kong.

We should also remember the American Indians, who with British support could be a very formidable barrier.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

How about the much more likely scenario, actually considered at the time by President Jefferson? The US forms an alliance with Great Britain, enters the Napoleonic Wars and seizes the Louisiana Territory without paying a cent. American privateers have some fun and the US winds up with a larger standing army and navy, as we either send a detachment to Europe or allow volunteers to be recruited by the Brits. No disastrous war of 1812 and the relations between Washington and London are much better, while the US relations with France are much worse.

Alternately, the US is galvanized by the British seizure of New Orleans and the area of modern-day Louisiana. When 1812 begins the US Navy has added several frigates and smaller craft, possibly the first line of battle ships also. More importantly is the size of the US army(20,000?). Given the continued needs in Europe AND the new garrison in New Orleans, the early British victories in Canada vs the US invaders never happen. The US either annexes Canada or keeps substantial border areas while getting New Orleans in return for partial withdrawing from Canada.

No reason immigration to the US would even notice a change, after all, settlement west of Ol' Man River didn't get far until after the Civil War. Any effort by the British to hold the entire purchase would guarantee a confrontation and the worst of all worlds. The US would seize practically everything north of Louisiana(the state), possibly losing bits of Alabama and Mississippi while the British took Florida. Now the US is angry, obliged to field a proper military, while this becomes an issue in every situation with the British. By 1900 the United States in OTL outweighed Great Britain itself in every category, and outweighed Canada by more than 10 to 1. How long before the British wind up making concessions on the grand scale to avoid a permanent foe at their back?

1845: Compromise not possible on Oregon, British join Mexico in war. Mexico is easily beaten as it was in OTL. US navy and coastal fortifications hamper RN actions while privateers ravage Brit merchant marine and English starve without US or Canadian grain.
War ends with border similar to 1848 in south(no Gadsden Purchase?) US obtains British Columbia, most of British territories in southeast.
NOTE: This may seem unlikely but compare the size of the US forces in this war with what appeared in 1861-1865. No reason the US doesn't send Taylor down with 50,000 instead of what he had. And given the alternative of a long and bloody and EXPENSIVE war, the British might find concessions out of Mexico's hide an attractive alternative.

1854: US enters Crimean War, British situation is soon rendered hopeless. US annexes most/all of Canada as well as Louisiana. Any changes in Mexican border are changed in US favor. Permanent peace-time US army of 50,000 destroys native resistance by 1860.

Indian Uprising of 1856? Franco-Prussian War? Sooner or later the British find themselves losing the two-front war.

Civil War? In the US? With much of the south held by London and a constant foreign threat? Don't be silly, never was such a thing.

The fact is that ANY long-term irritation to US/Brit relations would be disastrous for the English. The US as early as 1812 had Canada outclassed more than 10 to 1, guaranteeing a burden on London for any conflict. Given MORE territory to hold in the south and a PERMANENT source of trouble and the Brits would have been VERY unhappy. Transporting and maintaining any kind of military force to North America was extremly costly, and the British were extremly happy to spend the period 1815-1914 on the cheap as military spending went, not that this avoided many complaints from the public. Towards the end of the 19th century the entire British army was less than 140,000 on paper. Imagine requiring a PERMANENT military increase of 20-30% in time of peace, and much more EVERY TIME London has another conflict somewhere.

30,000 BRITS IN NEW ORLEANS!!! AIGH!!! Are you guys TRYING to hand Napoleon his victory at Waterloo?!?

 

[Faeelin]

The US won't go to war with Britain because of New Orleans. It would have been seized fair and square from the French in war. The US was not prepared in 1806 to fight the British - it took years of outrages to rile us up to the point of declaring war, and we only came out of that relatively intact because Napoleon returned.

Ahah, so now your argument changes. First you say the US couldn't take new orleans, now you argue that America wouldn't go to war.

It's not likely, but if the Brits do something stupid like close the Mississippi it's possible.

Actually, given that a lot of western produce fed the French caribbean colonies, this could be a problem.

 

[Dave Howery]

Interesting POD. Assuming that Britain does seize control of Louisiana, the 19th Century would become an increasingly hostile one for the US and UK. The US population will still likely boom, and the burgeoning population will be looking eagerly at all that empy land west of the Mississippi. I'd assume that in the short term at least, the UK will be reasonable about New Orleans... why PO the Americans needlessly (plus, it's profitable to keep it open). In the long term though, I'd think you would have increasing tension as the US looks for room for it's burgeoning population. The mere fact that so much empty land is so close to the US and so far from Britain spells trouble. There would likely be several offers from Washington to buy the territory outright. In the end, Britain has a few options:
sell it to the US
keep it as a colony
try to encourage a lot of settlers to move there (does the UK have enough people at this time to do that? they are already settling Australia, NZ, Canada....)
Ultimately, I'd have to say that Louisiana would end up in US hands, by purchase or war, unless the UK makes a major effort to set up the region as a major colony, likely at the expense of the other colonies. From what I know of that time, most people looked on the majority of the Louisiana territory as dry and useless, mainly as an obstacle to be crossed on the way to Oregon (with exceptions for the southern parts of it, especially New Orleans).
One other affect: the question of slavery in the western territories was one of the big causes of the ACW. WIth no western territories, how goes the history of the south in this TL?