WI No Leclerc expedition

Deleted member 67076

Soverihn,
my issue is that you're being a bit cavalier. you want an alliance with a regime that has overthrown the slave aristocracy in Haiti. That in itself is doable. could have worked out for both sides. The new regime (as almost all new regimes) could have used a fair shake from the previous over lords. In this case, it means recognizing that there's been a changing of the guard. OTL, Nap said screw that, I want to return to the old way. Didn't turn out so well. But IF Nap said ok, I'll play nice with the new man in charge, what happens? How do you do that without recognizing that Haiti is in charge of itself?
Basically what happened immediately OTL. Toussaint's constitution of 1801 recognized him as viceroy for life but as an integral department of France.

that the old order of slave aristocracy is now gone? this is the de facto situation. Nap could have made such recognition of what ended up being a basic reality. saved Haiti a lot of birthing grief. but he kisses goodbye to any backing of any slaveowning society, anywhere.
But why does he need them?

Had he done so, now you want him to use these people to foment the same thing elsewhere, but selectively. Slavery was gone in Haiti, but not everywhere. Thinking you can selectively decide which islands can be liberated, creating chaos, while allied, or French slaves elsewhere in the Caribbean, remain peaceful and unaware of what's going on, is ASB. Slaveowners everywhere all agreed on one thing: no matter what, don't let the slaves revolt. because if your slaves revolt, mine are going to follow. You are just way, way, way too cavalier in thinking that you can control a freedom movement amongst slave based islands, and also mainland North America. This is a population of very disadvantage people, but they aren't dumb, or ignorant of what's going on in the world, no matter what measures the masters think they can impose. If all slave societies work together to contain it, it can be done, but there is no way to selectively encourage a revolution amongst a people once they get the idea of violence as a means of freedom while subservience is a means to continued slavery.
This is where I disagree due to the nature of the Caribbean as a chain of islands. Slave revolts would be by nature isolated due to the island structure, and more of a defensive war in nature where in which British forces would have to reinvade to cement control. Its merely a matter then of supplying slaves while bleeding the Brits dry.

If his goal is to simply create mass chaos, it is easily doable. But, he doesn't maintain Spain as an ally, and any French controlled islands or sugar islands left also fall to the chaos. The US probably also swings more to the English side. Any gov't anywhere that has slavery swings to the anti French side. Nap can probably manage a deal with the de facto new regime in Haiti. Encouraging slave rebellion is going to make a lot of enemies, and negatively impact French interests.
Then he could always just do it during a coalition war where the rest of Europe doesn't care about France.
 
the Haitians were interested in themselves. They're not going to be like European countries where, once defeated they joined (usually forcefully) the French/Napoleon cause. Thus, they are available for one thing: not having to send French to subjugate Haiti. Otherwise, nothing. They're not going to be the vanguard of a Caribbean invasion force. they're staying home, protecting what's theirs. Nap can't force them. they haven't been beaten.
Except the Haitians were at the time French citizens. They saw themselves as French to a certain extent and were totally willing to work within the government of France. Guys like Louverture and Dessalines were generals in the French army. If Napoleon orders them to take Jamaica they sort of have to do it.

So, in a time of nominal peace, where is Nap going to redirect an army? they can't go island hopping, taking command of the Carribean. One owner is an enemy currently at peace (Britain). The other is an ally (Spain). You can restart the war with Britain and promptly have the seas cut off as Britain has the world's premiere navy while France has very little. Or you can turn Spain from an ally into an active enemy whom Britain would be more than willing to assist.
Or wait a few years for the war to restart. Napoleon certainly seemed to be planing for that to happen eventually.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Except the Haitians were at the time French citizens. They saw themselves as French to a certain extent and were totally willing to work within the government of France. Guys like Louverture and Dessalines were generals in the French army. If Napoleon orders them to take Jamaica they sort of have to do it.


Or wait a few years for the war to restart. Napoleon certainly seemed to be planing for that to happen eventually.

Yes, I would think that Napoleon would not deliberately jump from a state of peace to start a war with Britain or Spain in the Caribbean. The war would have to restart in Europe before Napoleon decides to overtly threaten Britain's Caribbean territories. When I wrote about this originally I simply assumed that the Peace of Amiens would not last and war would restart between Britain and France.
 
What happens if the 20K of Leclerc instead of trying and failing at reinstating slavery on Haïti, go on to French Louisiana and start building forts, garrisons, roads, etc...

Surely, Americans are going to be irate, but what are they going to do in the short term? It's not my recollection that they had any army capable of fighting 20K of French regulars readily available. The only solution was to ally the British, but impressment was already an issue, which means the general public might have trouble with this.

Which leaves negociation. What the US under Jefferson really wanted was secured and unrestricted access to New Orleans. But France isn't going to cede New Orleans outright, or they'll be ceding the whole territory like it happened in OTL.

Is some sort of compromise possible, with a French concession on some part of New Orleans given to the US (an "American quarter"), as well as a free navigation deal on the Mississippi for any ship waving either a French or an American flag?

If such a situation could work in the long term, and slavery isn't reinstated in French Louisiana, then this could have very interesting repercussions on the slavery debate in the US. Do you know if many slaves escaped to Mexico in OTL?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The whole adventure was based on an assumption that this is going to be a piece of cake: easy to slice and devour (the same stupid mistake he made in Spain). take that assumption away, and Haiti is NOT a grand piece of French hegemony. and most likely, Nap doesn't demand the return of Louisiana.

Why so this last part. I'm going to reconstruct what I think your logic might be here, you tell me if it matches your thinking.

A practically autonomous, French federated Haiti of freedman won't be such a grand piece of French hegemony such that Louisiana becomes its vital granary. The Haitians will grow their own food. Paris would never expect it to bring the wealth to France or have such huge sugar production levels to demand a Louisiana adjunct granary and cattle pasture. Paris would assume it has no such productive potential without slavery being reinstated.

No return of Louisiana, life gets a little more difficult for the US's grand boasts of marching into NO once Britain becomes a partner of Spain instead of a foe (which was the only reason the US could be so bellicose).

Yeah, I see Spanish Louisiana likely lasting until the Napoleonic Wars were over because of British ties. Britain would probably become indifferent after those wars end.

I wonder at what point the Americans would "Texas" the place.
 
Toussaint was a pragmatist. He wasn't willing to restore slavery, but he also had no interest in exporting the Revolution to the rest of the Caribbean. Haiti is still recovering from a decade of war, and trying to simultaneously restore its economy and rebuild a stable government. He was quietly trading with the British and the Americans (under the Adams administration) even while they were fighting the French elsewhere. Unlike Napoleon, he had no interest in conquest for the sake of conquest; he just wanted a decent-sized territory to rule over. If France tells him to stir up rebellions elsewhere, he may allow some of his less trustworthy followers to try, but he's likely to tip off the British that they are coming (he has been suspected of having done this OTL). If France orders him to send his army over the sea (with what navy?) to invade a nearby island, things get dicier, but he can likely stall long enough for the moment to pass; as noted, he has no navy capable of a serious invasion, and the Royal Navy would certainly intervene.

So, what does he offer?
1) Not having to get involved in a massive quagmire; yes, 20,000 soldiers is a small army by the standards of the invasion of Russia, but it's still a significant body of experienced troops and officers who won't be thrown away needlessly.
2) Not breaking the Treaty of Amiens quite so soon. Avoiding a war with Britain (and its vast coffers willing to hire other nations to fight the French) is basically the only way that Napoleon can realistically win in the long term. I don't think that he can do it (he IS Napoleon, after all), but not giving the British an excuse would help. Especially since once the war breaks out, that army in Haiti is cut off from the metropole in any event.
3) A safe base after the wars are over. Toussaint wasn't going to invade other islands, but he was more than willing to fight anyone who invaded Haiti, and he had already repelled several foreign expeditions already. Toussaint was trying to restore the sugar plantations (and using forced labor to do so, in many cases). It might not be quite so profitable a colony as it had been, but it would still be a significant asset to retain.
 
Toussaint rules Haiti with an iron fist and brings stability. He chooses Henri Christophe or his brother Paul Louverture as his successor. The island will be relatively stable. The expedition was in 1802. Napoleon fell in 1815. This would give Haiti about 13 years of peace. If Napoleon doesn't fall and rules longer Haiti could become prosperous. If Napoleon falls in 1815 like OTL it will be interesting. Prior to Leclerc's expeditionary force, the island was just starting to get back on track after years of war. Had Nappy gave Toussaint what he wanted the island would have been better off. Now the idea of Leclerc forces sent to the Louisiana territory is an interesting proposition.
 
Another thing is that Toussaint spent a lot of time trying to copy the plantation system without using slavery by creating work codes that basically had the same effect. By the time he was arrested there was a great deal of resentment in the country over this issue. He might face an internal revolt or two by the time he dies, and who ever follows after him will be dealing with it for years to come. The main cash crops of Haiti are very labor intensive and sugar at least also requires a great deal of machinery to produce which were destroyed in the initial revolt. So it could be years before Haiti was economically anywhere near the levels it was pre-revolution.
 
Why so this last part. I'm going to reconstruct what I think your logic might be here, you tell me if it matches your thinking.

A practically autonomous, French federated Haiti of freedman won't be such a grand piece of French hegemony such that Louisiana becomes its vital granary. The Haitians will grow their own food. Paris would never expect it to bring the wealth to France or have such huge sugar production levels to demand a Louisiana adjunct granary and cattle pasture. Paris would assume it has no such productive potential without slavery being reinstated.



Yeah, I see Spanish Louisiana likely lasting until the Napoleonic Wars were over because of British ties. Britain would probably become indifferent after those wars end.

I wonder at what point the Americans would "Texas" the place.
more or less what you said.
I've questioned in the past why Haiti was so vital to French dreams of Louisiana, and the response I got was that the wealth of Haiti, under a return to the old system, was going to be the engine that drove expansion in Louisiana. Sans that wealth, or a lynchpin in the Caribbean, France isn't really eager to transform a wilderness into something. Once France wasn't going to be the master of Haiti, Nap lost interest in LA. If he had wanted LA, he could have easily had it, for a bit, especially if it was goal one,but LA was a secondary goal to Haiti. Thus, I think no Haiti, means no LA. It's possible Nap could have done LA instead of Haiti, but that's not the way his dream went.

it would be interesting to see how things played out. The US might get more bellicose toward France, which means Britain cozies up to US, which probably does away with US-Britain war 1812. France now has a cross atlantic war front. Any way you slice it, it's doubtful France keeps LA longterm, unless he wins on the continent.
 
Top