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

[DanS]

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

I think we stand rather well in such a comparison with how others obtained their territories, if you consider the fact that we also bought Alaska, a nice large chunk of territory. That is, of course, leaving aside the fact that the land was in many ways stolen from the Indians.

[Saras]

Trivia: Did you know that, legally, the Louisiana territory was owned, if but for a few days, by a consortium of Baring Brothers of London and Hope & Co of Amsterdam, who later exchanged them for US bonds.

[lord of the mark]

lets clarify. The initial POD (point of departure) is that Spain retains the territory, and that France (perhaps getting its sense that colonies arent worth it, earlier than in OTL) doesnt aquire it from Spain. Seems plausible.

Now the question then arises, what was Jeffersons motive for seeking to buy it. IIRC, it was NOT (pace Dr SL) to get the land for settlement - at the time the old northwest (ohio, Indiana, illinois,lower Michigan) had plenty of empty land. The principle concern was the city of New Orleans, which controlled the Missippi, the principle route for grain exports from the part of the old northwest that WAS being settled (southern Ohio, etc) The presumption had been that Spain was not a threat, but France would be ( I believe Jefferson said - If France takes New Orleans, we will have to marry ourselves to the Royal Navy)

So if Spain holds lousiana and New Orleans, its quite possible the US doesnt try to buy them. Or if they do, Spain may sell New Orleans only, and not toss in the rest of the territory, as Nappy did.

Now of course EVENTUALLY the old northwest WILL fill up and there WILL be pressure for the US to expand towards Lousiana. But that wont happen immediately, and a lot of history can happen meanwhile.

I dont see the end of the Napoleonic wars as being decisive. If the territory is held by Spain, then Spain would keep it at the Congress of Vienna, no?

Big question is how this effects the Mexican rebellion against Spain. Unfortunately I dont know enough about that to comment in detail.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Tingkai
If France does not sell Lousiana in 1803, then we need to consider what happens during the War of 1812.

If we went to war with France in 180?, there wouldn't have been a War of 1812.

[Ramo]

I think the most plausible scenario in which this sale doesn't happen is that France successfully crushes the Haitian revolution. Since the disastrous attempt at retaking Haiti was essentially why Nappy gave up on a New World empire (the irony here is that Jefferson invited Nappy to crush the rebellion to reduce the possibility of the revolution being exported to the US). I suppose this would imply more resources being dedicated to colonialism, and less to conquering the rest of Europe. Which could mean that either he overstreches and the Congress of Vienna happens a little sooner, or he's forced into not doing crazy **** like invading Russia, and it happens later. Perhaps the Brits would take over part of French Lousiana, perhaps even New Orleans, as part of the peace settlement (as they took some French Carribean islands, and the Dutch Cape Colony and Sri Lanka at the Congress of Vienna). And then there's a mighty Canuckistan that stands in the Americans' way.

[Ben Kenobi]

LoTM:

There's no rationale for France to sell to Spain after the revolution.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
LoTM:

There's no rationale for France to sell to Spain after the revolution.

France got it from Spain after the revolution. Diss' original POD was what if Spain keeps it. Before he confused matters by introducing an alternative POD, in which France gets it, but refuses to sell.


What if we all understood the importance of introducing only one POD at a time, in a what if thread?

[Dis]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


France got it from Spain after the revolution. Diss' original POD was what if Spain keeps it. Before he confused matters by introducing an alternative POD, in which France gets it, but refuses to sell.


What if we all understood the importance of introducing only one POD at a time, in a what if thread?

picky, picky.

[Saras]

Imagine if Barings and Hope took it and ran

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by DanS


I think we stand rather well in such a comparison with how others obtained their territories, if you consider the fact that we also bought Alaska, a nice large chunk of territory. That is, of course, leaving aside the fact that the land was in many ways stolen from the Indians.

Why would you leave that aside?

Not to mention of course, the annexation of Texas, the ceding of the Oregon Territory from Britain under threat from Polk, and the "purchase" of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and western Colorado following the Mexican War.

The doctrines of "Manifest Destiny" and the "Monroe doctrine" clearly illuminate the ideals of the american policies of expansionism in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Does that make them worse than the Europeans? I didnt say it did.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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.

That's a pretty good long-term investment though.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's a pretty good long-term investment though.

Especially since they paird off the Indians who lived in Brooklyn, not on Manhatten. The Dutch were fighting the Manhatten Indians for years to come (Hence the "Wall Street")

[Saras]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's a pretty good long-term investment though.

Yes, but not a "killing".

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The principle concern was the city of New Orleans, which controlled the Missippi, the principle route for grain exports from the part of the old northwest that WAS being settled (southern Ohio, etc) The presumption had been that Spain was not a threat, but France would be ( I believe Jefferson said - If France takes New Orleans, we will have to marry ourselves to the Royal Navy)

So if Spain holds lousiana and New Orleans, its quite possible the US doesnt try to buy them. Or if they do, Spain may sell New Orleans only, and not toss in the rest of the territory, as Nappy did.

Ostensabley the reason that American settlers wanted New Orleans is because the French governor of Louisisana had been so arbitrary and capricious over granting Americans access to the port of New Orleans. That's the American side of the story, it'a also possible that French treatment of the American traders really wasn't that bad, but American entrepreneurs saw NewOrleans as a potential gold mine. The question is whether a Spanish governor have dealt with the American so differently as to diminish American desire for New Orleans. I suspect not. Something else to consider is that after 1808, when Napoleon installed his brother on the thronw of Spain the British severed Spain's links with her colonies. They began to revolt and the British took the opportunity to attempt to add a couple of them to the British empire. They were largely unsuccessful because they didn't have enough troops in the New World to adequately occupy any of the major Spanish colonies. More than likely the Americans would have felt obligated to seize Louisiana anyway, but if Louisiana had been a Spanish colony at the time who knows how the US would have gauged the boundaries of the colony.

[mrmitchell]

Yes, but not a "killing".

No single investment can be expected to do as good as 6% a yar for 400 years. A broad portfolio? Yes. An oft changing mix managed by a genius like Warren Buffet? Yes. Any one single stock or bond? Hell no.

DanS am I right?