What if: France had not sold the Louisiana territories to the U.S.?

[Dr Strangelove]

Greedy American settlers coveted the Louisiana territory, if only for dominance of the entire Mississppi river and to have an American port at the end of the river. On their part the French in Louisiana had treated American traders capriciously, closing the river to American trade whenever they felt like it. By 1803 groups of Americans were planning an invasion of Louisiana to put an end to these shenanigans. Jefferson was aware of these plans, and so offered to buy the territory from Napoleon primarily to prevent an international incident. Had Jefferson not bought Louisiana France and the US might have gone to war. More than likely the British would have sided with the US, though I'm not certain whether the Louisiana Purchase was completed before or after the Peace of Amiens.

[Gatekeeper]

Hmm. A good Web site for "what-if" questions like the ones posted by Dis is www.alternatehistory.com

Give it a shot. Some pretty neat stuff over there.

Gatekeeper

[Tingkai]

If France does not sell Lousiana in 1803, then we need to consider what happens during the War of 1812. If the war occurs, then the British would still have wanted to take New Orlearns because it controls the Mississppi . Lets assume that the the Battle of New Orleans still ends in a US victory (The French would not have been a factor because of the Royal Navy blockade).

With France defeated in Europe, the US would have no reason to surrender control back to France after the War of 1812 ends.

But the Louisiana purchase gave the US title to lands north and west of the Mississippi. With France defeated in Europe, Britain may well have taken the land between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains as a war prize.

The US would initially not have started a war with Britain for the plains given that it negoitated a peace for the War of 1812.

But Britain could not have kept control of the plains in the long run with the US holding New Orleans.

The only possibility of Britain keeping the plains is if it still controlled the area at the time of the US civil war. If it did, then Britain would have an incentive to enter the civil war on the southern side, or do a lend-lease with the South, in exchange for getting New Orleans.

So then the question becomes: Would Britain have sided with the slave states in order to get New Orleans and would that have made a difference in the Civil War?

[DanS]

This is a fun question, especially since the Louisiana Purchase is probably the best investment ever made by anybody.

[Ecthy]

Even if Britain would have sided with the south, the US would look the same today. It's all a matter of projectable power. The US (north) rules, just as far as that continent is concerned. The 13 colonies alone are enough t odominate the whole western hemisphere. Therefore, all this discussion is nonsense.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by DanS
This is a fun question, especially since the Louisiana Purchase is probably the best investment ever made by anybody.

IMO buying Manhatten for a few beads and trinkets was probably better. But I don't know how much Louisiana cost.

[GePap]

The US would have taken the land, sooner rather than later. In any scenerio that has France losing the Napoleonic wars, the US then gets away with it scott free. In any scenerio in which France wins, or draws that war then eventually the US probably keep the land, but ends up paying more in the end, either in terms of a cost of war, or paying the French off to settle the whole deal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Tingkai]So then the question becomes: Would Britain have sided with the slave states in order to get New Orleans and would that have made a difference in the Civil War?[/q]

I don't the South gives up New Orleans, because frankly, that is what would connect Texas to the rest of the Confederacy. Perhaps better terms of trade through the port would have been what was negotiated for.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Dracon II


IMO buying Manhatten for a few beads and trinkets was probably better. But I don't know how much Louisiana cost.

That one would count, if the Dutch hadn't later traded Manhattan Island for what would become Surinam -- quite possibly the second-worst land deal ever, after Manhattan's original purchace.

[Dis]

Re: Re: What if: France had not sold the Louisiana territories to the U.S.?

Originally posted by Ecthy


Why should France be allied with England at any point through the 19th century, especially over a matter like this?



I'm not sure about the population density of those territories at the time, but I'd think they'd be rather low compared to the United States. Therefore, with the two doctrines, they'd be taken at one point or another. If Spain couldn't hold her position in real life she won't in that scenario.

because the English are *******s. We got into war with them in 1812 after all.

[Ben Kenobi]

Amiens was concluded a year before the sale of Louisiana to the US.

Lots of interesting considerations here in the thread. If France did not sell Louisiana to help fund their wars on the continent to the Americans, they certainly would not have sold them to the British.

The problem of assuming that Napoleon sells to the Spanish, is you have to recall that the first coalition against the French Republic included Spain. The Revolution drastically changed the relations between France and Spain, so that it makes little sense for France to sell to Spain.

If the US did not purchase the Louisiana Territory from France, then I don't think they would sell the Territory to anyone. Then it becomes a matter of whether the US wants to invade French territory and spark a war.

Now, the trouble with the Americans wishing to invade the Lousiana territory, is that it also becomes at target for the British, who preferred to defeat France in their colonies rather than on the continent. It makes sense to me that the British would try to add New Orleans onto a Caribbean campaign. The Americans would not have acted against France without the support of the British, and it is doubtful that the British would have let them fight, since that would have meant they would have had to defend the Americans from the French. The Americans remained neutral throughout the Napoleonic wars out of a desire to build up the new country rather than plunge it into yet another war.

As for 1812, if the British defeat the French in New Orleans in 1805, then I'm not sure that there will be a war of 1812, let alone a civil war between the North and the South.

[Saras]

IIRC, the price paid for Manhattan, compared to todays price, gives an annual compound return of little over 6%. Not SOOOO great. Not bad, but not GREAT.

[Sikander]

"I'll take Manhattan for $200 Alex."

[Dr Strangelove]

New Orleans is only a few miles from Mississippi, so it's doubtful that the British could have made it to New Orleans in time to prevent an American takeover. They didn't have that many troops in the Carribean anyway. As I said above, interest groups in the US were already in the process of forming an invasion force when Jefferson decided to buy the land from the French. Jefferson had word sent to them that he was in the process of m,aking a deal with the French, otherwise the invasion would have commenced at about the same time that his ambassadors were working out the details with Napoleon. The only real hitch was that some of the French troops originally meant for the recovery of Haiti were still in Louisiana. The question is then how long could they have beaten off the Americans.

[SpencerH]

The simple answer is that the USA would've taken it by force (as it did virtually everything else).

If we exclude that possibility, I think we would've had an america that was more exposed to (and tolerant of) other cultures.