lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,044
Likes: 49,445
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 23, 2016 16:29:10 GMT
What if… France had not sold Louisiana? Map of the The Louisiana Purchase territory
During the spring of 1803, France agreed to sell the province of Louisiana to the United States for approximately $15m, around $236m in today’s terms. The province, ceded to French rule by the Spanish in 1800, was much larger than the present US state of Louisiana, a vast territory that stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rockies, encompassing some or all of 15 US states and two Canadian provinces. All told, the territory transferred to the US was more than 820,000 square miles, nearly doubling the size of the country. In the summer of 1803, President Thomas Jefferson doubted that the US Constitution gave him the power to negotiate such an agreement. His advisors warned him that France, ruled by Napoleon, was having misgivings about the sale, which had been prompted by a need for funds. But Jefferson set aside his scruples and, after a vote in the Senate, the US took possession of Louisiana. But what if Napoleon had changed his mind and the deal had collapsed? At the time, Britain and France were at war in Europe, and if France had not sold Louisiana that war would most likely have spread to North America. Napoleon may have sought to liberate Quebec from British rule, attacking the British in Upper Canada (modern Ontario). If Napoleon had been victorious, then the map of North America would have looked very different, with a vast Francophone nation stretching in a huge arc from New Orleans to Quebec. In this scenario, it is possible that a Spanish Empire, or an enlarged Mexican Republic, might also have persisted in the Far West. Alternatively, if Britain had fought and defeated Napoleon in North America, British territory would then have encompassed land profitable for slave-based plantation agriculture. If that labour system had prevailed in parts of an expanded British North America, a stronger slave lobby within the British Empire might have prevented the abolition of slavery in the 1830s. The emergence of a vastly larger British North America might also have made it easier to confine slavery within the southern states. This in turn may have meant that the American Civil War, from 1861 to 1865, could have been avoided, although another solution to the moral and political challenge posed by slavery would still have been needed. Native Americans might have benefited from a wider conflict between France, Britain, Spain and the US. While they would have been drawn into such a conflict at great risk and cost, the outcome could hardly have been worse than what came of their relations with the US during the 19th century. Confronted by one aggressive, expansionist, populous power, they were brutally displaced. The possibility of playing various powers off against each other might have provided native peoples with greater autonomy. What would it have meant for the US itself? In 1802, Jefferson said that if France took full possession of the port of New Orleans, “from that moment we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation.” The US might well have allied with Britain in a conflict againt France in North America. Although Jefferson believed Louisiana would sate the land-hunger of the US, he was incorrect. By the mid-century the republic would annex Texas, wage war with Mexico for the Southwest and Far West, and negotiate with Britain to acquire the Pacific Northwest—emerging as a continental and, later, global power. Without Louisiana, that expansion would not have happened—at least not along the same lines. A much smaller American republic would have been confined within its 1803 borders. Perhaps, as many Britons expected during the early 19th century, the American republic might have collapsed, and the former colony, even at that time, might have re-joined the British Empire. From the website Prospectmagazine comes a article called: What if… France had not sold Louisiana?
|
|
cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 24, 2016 10:12:16 GMT
The French did not really colonize Louisiana : except for New Orléans, it was a scarcely populated territory with a handful a french outposts and tradeposts. Giving the context of grooming war in Europe, Bonaparte had not the manpower (or, I think, the will) to make Louisiana a real settlement. However, if the war is adverted in Europe (namely Pitt dies and Bonaparte is brought to his senses by Talleyrand - or the reverse), there is a window of opportunity. But creating a big french dominion in Louisiana will only scale up the tensions, with Britain, Spain or the US. A far-stretched scenario is French-Spanish war over Texas or Florida, with the US stepping in on Spain's side, Britain goes backstabbing by attacking the US. When the dust settles, the French dominate the south (French and Spanish-speaking, catholic lands), the British the north. Only to clash later, of course. A far more appreciable scenario, but even more unlikely, is an overthrow of Bonaparte by the Republicans and the creation of a US-France alliance of republics against the monarchies (UK and Spain), with Louisiana in the wedding basket, and ultimately two republics on each side of the Atlantic, the United States of America and the United States of Europe .
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,044
Likes: 49,445
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 25, 2016 15:27:37 GMT
The French did not really colonize Louisiana : except for New Orléans, it was a scarcely populated territory with a handful a french outposts and tradeposts. Giving the context of grooming war in Europe, Bonaparte had not the manpower (or, I think, the will) to make Louisiana a real settlement. However, if the war is adverted in Europe (namely Pitt dies and Bonaparte is brought to his senses by Talleyrand - or the reverse), there is a window of opportunity. But creating a big french dominion in Louisiana will only scale up the tensions, with Britain, Spain or the US. A far-stretched scenario is French-Spanish war over Texas or Florida, with the US stepping in on Spain's side, Britain goes backstabbing by attacking the US. When the dust settles, the French dominate the south (French and Spanish-speaking, catholic lands), the British the north. Only to clash later, of course. A far more appreciable scenario, but even more unlikely, is an overthrow of Bonaparte by the Republicans and the creation of a US-France alliance of republics against the monarchies (UK and Spain), with Louisiana in the wedding basket, and ultimately two republics on each side of the Atlantic, the United States of America and the United States of Europe . I ways always thinking why did not Napoleon turn French Louisiana into a penal colony just like the British did, he could remove anybody who apposed him while increasing the population of French Louisiana.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 25, 2016 16:59:52 GMT
The French did not really colonize Louisiana : except for New Orléans, it was a scarcely populated territory with a handful a french outposts and tradeposts. Giving the context of grooming war in Europe, Bonaparte had not the manpower (or, I think, the will) to make Louisiana a real settlement. However, if the war is adverted in Europe (namely Pitt dies and Bonaparte is brought to his senses by Talleyrand - or the reverse), there is a window of opportunity. But creating a big french dominion in Louisiana will only scale up the tensions, with Britain, Spain or the US. A far-stretched scenario is French-Spanish war over Texas or Florida, with the US stepping in on Spain's side, Britain goes backstabbing by attacking the US. When the dust settles, the French dominate the south (French and Spanish-speaking, catholic lands), the British the north. Only to clash later, of course. A far more appreciable scenario, but even more unlikely, is an overthrow of Bonaparte by the Republicans and the creation of a US-France alliance of republics against the monarchies (UK and Spain), with Louisiana in the wedding basket, and ultimately two republics on each side of the Atlantic, the United States of America and the United States of Europe . I ways always thinking why did not Napoleon turn French Louisiana into a penal colony just like the British did, he could remove anybody who apposed him while increasing the population of French Louisiana. There is the problem that the colony is always likely to be vulnerable to either Britain or the US once France is at war with Britain again, which is virtually certain to be the case. Also do you want to concentrate your political opponents and people who have reasons to dislike you in one location thousands of miles away, even if it isn't likely to be isolated from you by enemies in a future war?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,044
Likes: 49,445
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 25, 2016 17:02:02 GMT
I ways always thinking why did not Napoleon turn French Louisiana into a penal colony just like the British did, he could remove anybody who apposed him while increasing the population of French Louisiana. There is the problem that the colony is always likely to be vulnerable to either Britain or the US once France is at war with Britain again, which is virtually certain to be the case. Also do you want to concentrate your political opponents and people who have reasons to dislike you in one location thousands of miles away, even if it isn't likely to be isolated from you by enemies in a future war? What treat could the be to Napoleon, declare a independent Louisiana, they do not have the power to strike at him as you say yourself, thousands of miles away.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 25, 2016 22:55:20 GMT
There is the problem that the colony is always likely to be vulnerable to either Britain or the US once France is at war with Britain again, which is virtually certain to be the case. Also do you want to concentrate your political opponents and people who have reasons to dislike you in one location thousands of miles away, even if it isn't likely to be isolated from you by enemies in a future war? What treat could the be to Napoleon, declare a independent Louisiana, they do not have the power to strike at him as you say yourself, thousands of miles away. Not a direct military threat to his position in France but if he was intent on trying to keep the colony, which I presume would be the case, this makes it easier for an opponents [basically UK or US] to incite unrest and possibly a successful rebellion, or at least to get a 5th column in any invasion. Which would defeat his expressed purpose of keeping it and could look bad in terms of prestige. True France lost the more valuable Caribbean sugar colonies but most were regained at the peace, 1st in 1801 and then again in 1814 whereas somewhere like Louisiana is likely to stake a bid for independence or fall into American hands.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,044
Likes: 49,445
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 26, 2016 1:46:47 GMT
What treat could the be to Napoleon, declare a independent Louisiana, they do not have the power to strike at him as you say yourself, thousands of miles away. Not a direct military threat to his position in France but if he was intent on trying to keep the colony, which I presume would be the case, this makes it easier for an opponents [basically UK or US] to incite unrest and possibly a successful rebellion, or at least to get a 5th column in any invasion. Which would defeat his expressed purpose of keeping it and could look bad in terms of prestige. True France lost the more valuable Caribbean sugar colonies but most were regained at the peace, 1st in 1801 and then again in 1814 whereas somewhere like Louisiana is likely to stake a bid for independence or fall into American hands. So Haiti is the key, if he does not lost that then there might be a change he can keep Louisiana.
|
|
|
Post by puffyclouds on Aug 26, 2016 4:34:33 GMT
Development of the territory between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River relies on transit through New Orleans. If American commerce through New Orleans is banned, then there will be a push for war. There will also be American settlers that begin to enter into parts of the Louisiana Territory and will push for annexation to the United States.
If access through New Orleans is partially restricted, development of Mississippi and Alabama will be slowed. This gives the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Cherokee breathing room, but it may not prevent their dispossession.
I really doubt Napoleon has anything to gain by invading continental North America.
|
|
cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 26, 2016 9:00:36 GMT
After the SYW, France decided to abandon Canada and kept the sugar islands. Historically, the French Kings chose to ban the religious dissenters (Calvinists, mostly) from emigrating into New France. A stark contrast to the British policy in New England and one of the reasons why the French colonies were so scarcely populated. (Apart : hey, this is a good idea for an ATL). Napoléon followed very much the Ancien Régime colonial policy (one of the reasons I do not like him) and he should probably do the same thing : keep the sugar island (and re-establish slavery) and sell the useless north American lands for time and/or cash.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 26, 2016 11:00:30 GMT
Not a direct military threat to his position in France but if he was intent on trying to keep the colony, which I presume would be the case, this makes it easier for an opponents [basically UK or US] to incite unrest and possibly a successful rebellion, or at least to get a 5th column in any invasion. Which would defeat his expressed purpose of keeping it and could look bad in terms of prestige. True France lost the more valuable Caribbean sugar colonies but most were regained at the peace, 1st in 1801 and then again in 1814 whereas somewhere like Louisiana is likely to stake a bid for independence or fall into American hands. So Haiti is the key, if he does not lost that then there might be a change he can keep Louisiana. I doubt it. If he wins in Haiti then he's likely to lose it to revolt later when war with Britain resumes, which I think would be a virtual certainty. Even if he increased the garrison of New Orleans with some of the forces from Haiti, which I think was the plan their likely to be largely isolated and the region taken over by either Britain or the US or possibly an alliance of the two.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 26, 2016 11:15:35 GMT
After the SYW, France decided to abandon Canada and kept the sugar islands. Historically, the French Kings chose to ban the religious dissenters (Calvinists, mostly) from emigrating into New France. A stark contrast to the British policy in New England and one of the reasons why the French colonies were so scarcely populated. (Apart : hey, this is a good idea for an ATL). Napoléon followed very much the Ancien Régime colonial policy (one of the reasons I do not like him) and he should probably do the same thing : keep the sugar island (and re-establish slavery) and sell the useless north American lands for time and/or cash. Isn't that basically what he ended up doing? Although once war resumed and especially after Trafalgar the sugar islands, even if he had managed to keep Haiti, would have been living on borrowed time. In fact I think it was the decision to restore slavery and the old plantation system that prompted the Haiti revolt as its original leader had been quite friendly to the ideas of the French revolution.
|
|
cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 26, 2016 14:26:33 GMT
The fate of the French West Indies during the Revolution is quite complicated. While many Revolutionary leaders were abolitionists, slavery was not abolished until 1794, in the context of the war in Saint-Domingue (Haiti) : in support of Toussaint Louverture, French commissioners had abolished slavery on the island. The planters chose then, in their majority, to deal with the British in order to keep their plantations. The Convention followed and generalized a local initiative. The owners of the islands of Martinique and Tobago were so afraid of the abolition that they decided to surrender themselves to the British in order to keep business as usual. At the Peace of Amiens, Martinique was handed back to the French. But the planters, as afraid as in 1794, asked the British to put pression on Napoléon to keep the slave system on the island. So in theory, the re-establishment of the slavery was limited to Martinique, but in fact, of their own initiative or on Napoléon's orders, the local governors did re-establish slavery in every French colony. This re-establishment was ordered after the Leclerc expedition in Saint-Domingue. The rift between Toussaint Louverture and Napoléon was Louverture's Constitution of 1801, which make him pretty much as powerful in Haiti as Bonaparte was in France.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 26, 2016 19:58:10 GMT
The fate of the French West Indies during the Revolution is quite complicated. While many Revolutionary leaders were abolitionists, slavery was not abolished until 1794, in the context of the war in Saint-Domingue (Haiti) : in support of Toussaint Louverture, French commissioners had abolished slavery on the island. The planters chose then, in their majority, to deal with the British in order to keep their plantations. The Convention followed and generalized a local initiative. The owners of the islands of Martinique and Tobago were so afraid of the abolition that they decided to surrender themselves to the British in order to keep business as usual. At the Peace of Amiens, Martinique was handed back to the French. But the planters, as afraid as in 1794, asked the British to put pression on Napoléon to keep the slave system on the island. So in theory, the re-establishment of the slavery was limited to Martinique, but in fact, of their own initiative or on Napoléon's orders, the local governors did re-establish slavery in every French colony. This re-establishment was ordered after the Leclerc expedition in Saint-Domingue. The rift between Toussaint Louverture and Napoléon was Louverture's Constitution of 1801, which make him pretty much as powerful in Haiti as Bonaparte was in France. Agree. I had a quick look at the Wiki pages, lacking much other knowledge of the period and region and it was very fluid in a number of ways with assorted groups switching sides backwards and forwards.
|
|
doug181
Chief petty officer
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
|
Post by doug181 on Oct 29, 2016 11:45:02 GMT
Brits take Louisiana from France ,blocking further US expansion setting up an inevitable conflict
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,044
Likes: 49,445
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 29, 2016 11:48:51 GMT
Brits take Louisiana from France ,blocking further US expansion setting up an inevitable conflict How would they mange to do that.
|
|