WI: No Louisiana Purchase

I ask because if Louisiana Territory is British, Spanish, French, or independent (but especially if it is British) and slavery is abolished BEFORE it is in the USA, then there is suddenly a huge area very close by in which a lot of Black Americans can escape to and settle as free men. The southern slave-owners are going to notice and there will be conflict.
 
I ask because if Louisiana Territory is British, Spanish, French, or independent (but especially if it is British) and slavery is abolished BEFORE it is in the USA, then there is suddenly a huge area very close by in which a lot of Black Americans can escape to and settle as free men. The southern slave-owners are going to notice and there will be conflict.

I think the biggest change with a non-US Louisiane, isn't the fleeing of slaves, but the situation of slavery itself.

Indeed, the Louisiane purchase not only forced the Congress to settle the Missouri Compromise eventually, institutionalizing the slavery and making it a weak point into north-south policies; but allowed southern slaves-owner to resolve the de-fertilization of S-W states, because of surexplotation of cotton cultures, by moving by entiere families (slaves inclued).

So far, i could say : No Missouri Compromise, no abolitionist-slavers crisis in 1820's, no Maine state (because, if it's not allowed in statehood to counter Missouri, it's unlikely that the state's split would be), slavery becoming more and more reduced in territory, in population and in institutionalization.
 
Good point but would the south not simply secede when pushed to abolish?
I think the abolitionism would be far less important and militant, because of the situation forcing the southerners to abandon slowly slavery.
Nor the Congress or Presidency or Abolitionist would have interest on tickle slavers for a last stand when slavery is going to die "naturally".
 
I think the abolitionism would be far less important and militant, because of the situation forcing the southerners to abandon slowly slavery.
Nor the Congress or Presidency or Abolitionist would have interest on tickle slavers for a last stand when slavery is going to die "naturally".


What I could see is a push for abolitionism in a surviving Louisiana, especially if and when Napoleon is defeated. There had already been some small insurrections there, I understand, and independence or the like could most likely mean abolition a little after American abolition, maybe in the 1870s or even 80s.
 
I'm going to try not to be snide, but... 1812 was all about taking Canada. Cuba was an obsession for Americans in the 1890s, and when they lost in '56 they spent the next 20 years plotting revenge very poorly to get it back. You did want them and in the case of Canada, very badly; you just weren't able to.
few in the US wanted Canada or Cuba or all of OR, but most of the country wanted New Orleans. As for Cuba, we had a chance to take it as a colony after the SAW, but balked (luckily).

Actually, no. It's not American exceptionalism you're right, and it's not destined to happen. I'll agree there's a good chance it will, but it's not like there was this inertia pushing the U.S. further and further westward. The Louisiana Purchase changed U.S. history forever because this westward motion became a reality. In 1803 though the US was a small, developing largely immigrant nation that managed to expel the British with significant foreign aid. If Britain or France decided they really wanted to press a claim on Louisiana, they could do it. They didn't though because at the time it wasn't worth the trouble, but it was well within their power. Likewise, if the US rejected buying the land (which was incredibly controversial at the time) I can't see them settling it very easy. New Orleans is something they wanted but if it was denied to them they'd end up just building up another port on the east coast.
See; (filler)New Orleans and most of the southern portions of the Purchase are going to fall to the US one way or another. It's not American exceptionalism to say that no other power in the region had the population, position, will or might to take it, all or in part, before the US. The Canadian-British might get the Dakotas, but that's about it. France or Spain certainly isn't going to get to hold onto the territory that's only nominally theirs to begin with.

As for the Texas argument; that American settlers will inevitably colonize new territories and bring them into its glorious democratic fold, Canada refutes just about everything mentioned so far. I'm Canadian, born and raised, my dad's side from India and my mom's side from Sask. My mom's grandma? From America! They came because of free-land and minimal administration. Could give less of two shits whose flag they were flying. From anecdotal quotes from my grandma to the books I've read, that seems to have largely been the case in the settlement of the US. A lot of Canada's early settlement in Nova Scotia, Ontario, the Prarie provinces and B.C. came from settlers in the US. Lots of settlers in the US came in through Canada. It's basically moot point until you get to the 1900s+.

It wasn't inevitable at all. Likely, but not inevitable.
 

Glen

Moderator
Don't worry...I have managed to use the search function to check other threads :)

- What do you think would have happened if the House of Representatives had voted to deny the request to purchase the land?

That is hard to imagine - much easier to imagine is Napoleon not selling.

Would Britain have seized the whole territory during the Napoleanic wars, or possibly as loot in the aftermath?

Most likely would be its return to Spain, which then would make it likely to go to Mexico, except for New Orleans which I suspect would have been swept up in the whole annexation of West Florida by the US from Spain before that. However, Mexico is unlikely to keep it for long as Americans will spill into the area and you have a Louisiana Revolution instead of a Texas Revolution, followed by an inexorable analogue to the Mexican-American War. The eventual US/Mexican border may be a bit more Northerly than OTL, especially in Texas.

- Would a successful "request denied" have set a precedent for no expansion of the USA,

Again, don't know that it is likely to happen, but it is possible, and if it did, it might set some precedent.

or would public mood still change and favour the annexing of...say Florida. Or invasion into possibly British Louisiana?

More likely, though I would replace British Louisiana with Mexican Louisiana.

- Do you think the CSA would still of broken away? Would they have a better chance of success?

Just interested to hear opinions while I moot a new TL along these lines.

Yes, the CSA is still likely,though not necessary. They would not stand a better chance, though.
 
Top