With no Louisiana will America take Canada?

The Louisiana purchase was not always a sure thing

Multiple issues were brought up like the fact that America was reluctant to make all of the people within it citizens

Let’s say that for some reason the Louisiana purchase falls through what happens next?

Personally I think it’s most likely that America will go after Canada but if they do will they be successful?
 
The Louisiana purchase was not always a sure thing

Multiple issues were brought up like the fact that America was reluctant to make all of the people within it citizens

Let’s say that for some reason the Louisiana purchase falls through what happens next?

Personally I think it’s most likely that America will go after Canada but if they do will they be successful?

Louisiana gets Texas-ed over the next few decades, as Westward migration starts pushing into the region and the local French start getting rapidly outnumbered. The situation on the ground well, over time, make it next to impossible for France to hold onto the area even if they can hold it through the Napoleonic Wars (Or have it restored with the Restoration; though assuming no Vienna butterflies going back to the 92' borders means it likely restored to Spain instead, who are going to have even MORE problems keeping it). The US is ultimately going to run into the issue of Britain over trying to take Canada; contesting the (much weaker) power holding Lousianna is going to be a war that's alot easier to win.

Or, if we go with the possability the French sell it to somebody else, the last thread I spoke of on this reached this conclusion: The only nation who'd be able to keep the legitimacy of the purchase post-Napoleonic Wars is the Ottomans. While the prospect of a Turkish New World colony is highly interesting, the chances of it happens is next to none.
 
any objection, or expansion desire, raised about expanding west will also be raised about expanding north. west is more desireable and EASIER. If US isn't going west, it remains at existing borders.
 
Personally I think it’s most likely that America will go after Canada but if they do will they be successful?
They went after it OTL, it didn't go too well. No Louisiana Purchase just means that Americans wouldn't be able to parade the Battle of New Orleans around.

Now the real interesting question is what happens next. Even the "boring" answer of "the Texas effect" is still TL worthy (there's a reason why Texas and California are top dogs in the Union). Not to mention the outside contenders like the British seizing it South Africa style, it reverting to Spanish/Mexican rule, an independant Republic of Louisiana, the French getting to keep it durring the Restoration, or for shear memetic value the Ottomans buying it (which probably immediately leads to an independant republic of Louisiana).
 
Spain getting Louisiana back probably ushers in the biggest change on the continent. OTL Texas was able to do a 'Texas' because the neighbor to one side was an expansionist US who had easier access to it than Mexico. Texas was rather remote from the populous part of Mexico. It was slow growing from a Mexican POV, which is one of the reasons they invited in the US Americans. New Orleans/Louisiana was a fast growing region in 1800. While US Americans were entering, it was mostly with the blessing of the Spanish/Mexican gov't and reasonably controlled. LA was also getting direct European immigration. While the flavor wasn't exactly Spanish/Mexican, it also wasn't US American. Texas is going to be an extension of that rather than the OTL US American flavor that came in and could be easily persuaded things would be better independent/under the US umbrella. IF Spain/Mexico is in control of the Mississippi, and Texas does try to pull a 'Texas', Spain/Mexico can cut off easy access from the US Americans and send troops to put down a rebellion.

If/when Mexico decides to rebel, LA may decide to remain with Spain. It is way too underpopulated to make a go of it as an independent country, but it may not want to join with Mexico. Plus, if Spain maintains control of New Orleans, it maintains control of Louisiana. Holding St Louis as well also cements Spanish control. Control of those two cities helps Spain manage the US American immigration. Eventually, LA will go the way of virtually all OTL colonies, which means independence. But if it grows up and populates under a Spanish gov't, it will have it's own identity and is less likely to want to join the US, who is also less likely to want to absorb a huge non US entity. This last point also holds for Canada. At some point, Canada will be too strong politically for the US to desire. the US wants populations it can control and assimilate, not foreign entities with political clout it can throw around.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
First thing that came to mind is the reverse might be more true. If the USA gets Canada or just Upper Canada in the ARW, then the USA is less likely to covet/buy/Take Louisiana. With the additional lands, we might well see the Great Lakes basin dominating settlement and many fewer settlers going to lesser quality lands like Tennessee. Add the Lawrence River shipping plus a few canal connecting the Great Lakes, we might see a USA that is focused much farther north. Imagine where there is heavy settlement first around the Great Lakes. Then we start adding canals to allow shipping via the existing Great Lakes such as near Chicago. Maybe some into Ohio river basin. Then the swamps around Louisiana and Arkansas might be less appealing.

So if we get to a world where the South is less prevalent in USA politics/demographics, and it is the 1830s or 1840s before we start lusting for the Southern Mississippi river basin, then Texas, we give time for the area to be filled by settlers of France, Spain, or someone else.
 
before it has a 'go north' idea, the US first has to deal with the 'entire Mississippi' goal... they really wanted to control the river and land east of it, all the way down to New Orleans, so that their shipping would be clear the entire length of it. Whoever ends up with the city is going to have to deal with the US continually pestering them to sell it, and if that fails, trying to take it militarily at some opportune time. Conquering Canada was always a controversial idea in the US, due to regional concerns. The south and east were deadest against it, the Old Northwest was solidly in favor. But most Americans were in favor of getting control of NO...
 
First thing that came to mind is the reverse might be more true. If the USA gets Canada or just Upper Canada in the ARW, then the USA is less likely to covet/buy/Take Louisiana. With the additional lands, we might well see the Great Lakes basin dominating settlement and many fewer settlers going to lesser quality lands like Tennessee. Add the Lawrence River shipping plus a few canal connecting the Great Lakes, we might see a USA that is focused much farther north. Imagine where there is heavy settlement first around the Great Lakes. Then we start adding canals to allow shipping via the existing Great Lakes such as near Chicago. Maybe some into Ohio river basin. Then the swamps around Louisiana and Arkansas might be less appealing.

So if we get to a world where the South is less prevalent in USA politics/demographics, and it is the 1830s or 1840s before we start lusting for the Southern Mississippi river basin, then Texas, we give time for the area to be filled by settlers of France, Spain, or someone else.
regardless of lands, the Mississippi river is a vital shipping system. True that with a St Lawrence shipping system (which needs to be built) can be the centerpiece of a economic region, but Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, western Tennessee is still going to benefit from access to the Mississippi River. The US is going to want/demand free unfettered navigation regardless of control of the St Lawrence.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
regardless of lands, the Mississippi river is a vital shipping system. True that with a St Lawrence shipping system (which needs to be built) can be the centerpiece of a economic region, but Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, western Tennessee is still going to benefit from access to the Mississippi River. The US is going to want/demand free unfettered navigation regardless of control of the St Lawrence.

True, but we largely stopped immigration after the ARW. i.e. Domestic population growth. So if we imagine a world where both the USA got Canada in the ARW and the same immigration policy, every settler that settles in Ontario or Quebec or Nova Scotia is a setter that does not go to somewhere else. So I think it is easy to slow by decades the rate Americans arrive at any location in the Mississippi river valley. And if this happens, it allows a chance for some other European group to settle. And this group might stop the USA.

However, if this land is largely left empty, then when the USA has filled up the better lands of what is now Eastern Canada, we will simply explode into the lower Mississippi River Valley and Texas.

Also, I guess this is just my bias. The USA went on such a winning streak, the dice fell our way. If we assume the USA gets a good die roll and gets Canada, then we should consider the butterflies will tend to go against the USA compared to OTL. i.e. Having Canada will often mean no California in the USA, maybe not Texas, some odds of no New Orleans. Just think about this, if the USA does not get interested in New Orleans until after 1816, then the UK may well try to keep it out of USA hands as a matter of policy.
 
And if we wanna go extremely crazy what if the Greek revolution fails in Europe and some of the Greek rebels go to ottoman Louiasana and form a Greek republic there


Sounds completely absurd and I think I love it
 
Also, I guess this is just my bias. The USA went on such a winning streak, the dice fell our way. If we assume the USA gets a good die roll and gets Canada, then we should consider the butterflies will tend to go against the USA compared to OTL. i.e. Having Canada will often mean no California in the USA, maybe not Texas, some odds of no New Orleans. Just think about this, if the USA does not get interested in New Orleans until after 1816, then the UK may well try to keep it out of USA hands as a matter of policy.

The results are more than just good dice rolls: the US also has a pretty min-maxed build and bonuses to rolls on her home continent vs. powers with different home continents. The US has such a major stat advantage over late empire Spain and plenty of rolls for NO; you can't expect her to get natural 1s forever. Texas, to, has odds stacked in her favor given Mexico's Instability penelty, though I'll agree California is well up in the air. Alot has to do with the question if the US develops a major incentive to push for a major Pacific port: oriant commerce towards the Gulf and Atlantic early and well enough and they may not even try hard for it
 

Lusitania

Donor
People talk about US getting good dice like the war of 1812 was an even match. The US militia was ill equipped, and worse badly led. Remember US in 1812 had no army to speak of and relied on militia to try and invade Canada. A weaker US without Mississippi would fare even worse.
 
If not for the Louisiana Purchase, the Brits would almost certainly have taken it. The Americans would invade in 1812 and probably succeed, and most likely still fail in Canada. From there things would be more or less the same.
 
If not for the Louisiana Purchase, the Brits would almost certainly have taken it. The Americans would invade in 1812 and probably succeed, and most likely still fail in Canada. From there things would be more or less the same.
at this time though, the US was really only interested in that part of the LA Territory that included all the land east of the Mississippi and New Orleans... the idea of taking the whole territory beyond the Mississippi wasn't really there (no one really wanted it at the time). If the US tries to take it militarily, it will be a limited operation aimed at NO itself. As for the idea of taking Canada... it might be attempted (it was in OTL after all, under different circumstances), but there are some regional disputes to be worked out...
 
If not for the Louisiana Purchase, the Brits would almost certainly have taken it. The Americans would invade in 1812 and probably succeed, and most likely still fail in Canada. From there things would be more or less the same.

People talk about US getting good dice like the war of 1812 was an even match. The US militia was ill equipped, and worse badly led. Remember US in 1812 had no army to speak of and relied on militia to try and invade Canada. A weaker US without Mississippi would fare even worse.

The million Pound Sterling question though is if the US who's right of commerce down the Mississippi is either being strangled by the French/Spainish or dependent on continued good relations with the UK would even adopt the same immediate policies on commerce and invasion it did IOTL. Embargo towards GB would certainly be less popular, and will things like Citizen Genet,the Quasi-War,XYZ affair, cumilating in an intrasigent refusal to sell Lousianna would be a nail in the coffin of Franco-American relations that could easily butterfly away 1812. I could even see Britain and the US negotiating for the desired Native American buffer state in the Transmississippi region if the UK snatches it out from under France, or have London pull the US into continuing to embargo the French and reopen commerce to the UK while joining the war against the Emperor by offering to split French Lousianna in exchange for the US renouncing any claims on Canada (Maybe give the US everything south of a line from the Ohio-Mississippi intersect?)
 

Lusitania

Donor
OK lets review the situation of the Louisiana Purchase.

Before the Haiti revolt the French were very much interested in developing Louisiana territory into a proper French Settler colony. But only as long as Haiti with its huge sugar plantations paid the bill. The profit was in sugar plantation not in settler colonies (reason French kept the Caribbean islands instead of Quebec after 7 year war). They had a choice.

So if Haiti not revolt (or revolt put down) only reason Napoleon not sell to Americans. So there would of been many French settlers and soldiers there in 1812 and we not have the same situation as per iotl. Also the war hacks in congress were able to get a declaration of war against the British and now they going to get against the French who were still formidable military power in Europe? Really. That is if both Haiti and French Louisiana not occupied by British during the Napoleonic wars.
 
OK lets review the situation of the Louisiana Purchase.

Before the Haiti revolt the French were very much interested in developing Louisiana territory into a proper French Settler colony. But only as long as Haiti with its huge sugar plantations paid the bill. The profit was in sugar plantation not in settler colonies (reason French kept the Caribbean islands instead of Quebec after 7 year war). They had a choice.

So if Haiti not revolt (or revolt put down) only reason Napoleon not sell to Americans. So there would of been many French settlers and soldiers there in 1812 and we not have the same situation as per iotl. Also the war hacks in congress were able to get a declaration of war against the British and now they going to get against the French who were still formidable military power in Europe? Really. That is if both Haiti and French Louisiana not occupied by British during the Napoleonic wars.

There's plenty of oppritunities to head off the revolt in Haiti from spiraling into the total bedlam it became IOTL. I'd argue your best bet is to have the Decree of April 4th (1792) stick as the accepted law the land by the Colonial Commission back in France and taken on as the best cause by the powers that be on the island proper (The Big Whites and Mulattoes); keeping the legal distinction between Free Persons and Slaves but removing the racial distinctions. It might hackle the Small Whites, but A) They're already getting expanded rights from the Ancien Regeime, and B) Won't be making common cause with the Slaves. The only route they'd have available to revolt would be to appeal to the British and Spainish or the Americans (Possibly raising the spectere of a Free Black-dominated domain just off the coast to frighten the economic elites in the American South and in Cuba and Dominica, to attack Filibusters and funding) which if the Democratic-Republicans in the US (at the demand of their Southern constituents) start backing could easily further sour relations between Washington and Paris.

That, or just have Spain not agree to the re-hand over to France. Than, under the British policy of enforcing Ferdinand's sovereginity post-coup the territory would remain under the Bourbon crown through the war.
 
Top