WI: Napoleon Never Loses Saint-Domingue

Like it says on the tin, the point of divergence should be somewhere within the Haitian revolution and have enough power to change the tide of war into French favor. It was because of the revolution that France eventually signed away Louisiana to the United States.

Personally, I could see that having no war with England in 1803. Thus allowing Napoleon to reinforce troops and avoid a naval blockade.

Any other ideas?
 
Don't have Napoleon allow the adoption the Law of 20 May 1802, which imposed slavery in various colonies; while it did not apply to Saint-Dominque, it was thought by many former slaves to do so, relaunching the revolution.

Spain acceding to France's request to cede West and East Florida might help as well.
 
Like it says on the tin, the point of divergence should be somewhere within the Haitian revolution and have enough power to change the tide of war into French favor. It was because of the revolution that France eventually signed away Louisiana to the United States.

Personally, I could see that having no war with England in 1803. Thus allowing Napoleon to reinforce troops and avoid a naval blockade.

Any other ideas?

France did not sel Louisiana because of the revolution but because of the close coming of war with the UK.

The point is : if Napoleon wants to build a strong french presence in America, he needs a lasting peace with the UK.

I am not sure holding Louisiana would conflict Britain's vital interests. Britain could even be satisfied of having North America divided and France conflicting the US expansion.

But if war Brooke out again in Europe between France and England, the french american possessions would very probably be lost.
 
I thought after losing Haiti, Napoleon recognized he would have no ability to really defend Louisiana, hence the sale. If he doesn't lost it, then he doesn't need to sell Louisiana.
 
I thought after losing Haiti, Napoleon recognized he would have no ability to really defend Louisiana, hence the sale. If he doesn't lost it, then he doesn't need to sell Louisiana.

That is precisely what I'm saying. But avoiding the revolution in Haiti needs to happen first.
 
The Law of 20 May 1802 mustn't past, because although the law didn't actually affect Saint-Dominque, it did spark the rebellion that would become the Haitian Revolution. If Napoleon keeps the Law of 4 February 1794 then he's golden. Well, not entirely but alas it'd stop France from losing Saint-Dominque when it did and it'd allow Napoleon an adequate way of securing his approach to Louisiana.

That'd have to have Napoleon not pissing off Britain too much as well of course, as they did rule the waves and stop from all of Europe (Prussia, Russia, Austria to name a few) from wanting Napoleon to be torn to bloody shreds and keep a sustained peace.
 
If Napoleon doesnt pass that law, and doesnt have to militarily secure Haiti, which he didnt succeed at any, just destroyed an army, then he could use that army to hold Louisiana.

Now, i dont see France KEEPING Louisiana - either the US or UK is likely to get it eventually, but there would be major changes, likely. Just not sure what.
 
If Napoleon doesnt pass that law, and doesnt have to militarily secure Haiti, which he didnt succeed at any, just destroyed an army, then he could use that army to hold Louisiana.

Now, i dont see France KEEPING Louisiana - either the US or UK is likely to get it eventually, but there would be major changes, likely. Just not sure what.

If we're talking the same army that was sent to suppress the Haitian revolution, that's 60,000 soldiers. Even assuming only half of that goes to Louisiana, that's still three times as much as the US and the UK combined had on the continent at the start of the War of 1812.
 
Even if Napoleon does send that force that went to Haiti to North America would they still fare better in regards to climate and disease?
 
Napoleon wanted Louisiana in order to be able to feed the slave population of Haiti and wash intending to cut off imports from the United States. We need only look at the bilateral series or treaties imposed over Europe in order to prevent countries from trading with each other despite France not being able to produce enough to either fill the needs of their neighbors or to pay for their imports. The lands being forced to pay for thousands of soldiers as well as the dozens of men he ennobled didn't help industry either.
 
If we're talking the same army that was sent to suppress the Haitian revolution, that's 60,000 soldiers. Even assuming only half of that goes to Louisiana, that's still three times as much as the US and the UK combined had on the continent at the start of the War of 1812.

Yeah, but the trick would be keeping them adequately supplied with guns, tools, horses, cannons, etc....... This would be tricky even before you consider the British. Who will happily sink or steal anything that is being sent to supply Louisiana.

Still he may try if he thinks that he has a chance. Louisiana and New Orleans was considered one of the sweetest plums on the table.

There is also money to consider. The two reasons for the Louisiana purchase was to profit off of it before either the British or Americans took it, and to get some desperately needed cash. Where would he get the money if he didn't sell?
 
Top