Considering that there were already thousands of Americans that were either settled or on their way, perhaps the War of 1812 might have started earlier.
What if... France had never sold Louisiana in 1803 ?
- Thread starter D' Artagnan
- Start date
Considering that there were already thousands of Americans that were either settled or on their way, perhaps the War of 1812 might have started earlier.
Shady
Why are you reading this?
The most important reason why France was willing to sell it is because the territorry was huge, unmanagable, and unprofitable and such quick cash was badly needed for the war effort in europe.
America and France weren't great allies. In fact they weren't allies at all. The Americans, in order to stay out of the revolutionary conflict in europe, decided that their 1778 alliance was with the french monarchy, not the republic. The anit-federalists under jefferson said this was b.s. since they were pro french and the federalists under hamilton backed this and wanted to support the british. Never at any time did the U.S. honor any part of its alliance with the republic, nor with the monarchy either.
The fact was that after the Jay treaty with England around 1800 (can't remember exactly), the french fleet and the american fleet were engaged in an undeclared war as the french regurarily, attacked and captured american merchants and impressed the sailors into their navy. The British were doin the same thing but the u.s. only rises up against the british on this (and other matters) in the war of 1812.
At no time before post ww2 did the united states ever have any strong or great alliances as the ancient words of washington's farewell address were cherished which advocated firm american isolation.
America and France weren't great allies. In fact they weren't allies at all. The Americans, in order to stay out of the revolutionary conflict in europe, decided that their 1778 alliance was with the french monarchy, not the republic. The anit-federalists under jefferson said this was b.s. since they were pro french and the federalists under hamilton backed this and wanted to support the british. Never at any time did the U.S. honor any part of its alliance with the republic, nor with the monarchy either.
The fact was that after the Jay treaty with England around 1800 (can't remember exactly), the french fleet and the american fleet were engaged in an undeclared war as the french regurarily, attacked and captured american merchants and impressed the sailors into their navy. The British were doin the same thing but the u.s. only rises up against the british on this (and other matters) in the war of 1812.
At no time before post ww2 did the united states ever have any strong or great alliances as the ancient words of washington's farewell address were cherished which advocated firm american isolation.
Chazcon
Prince
Think of it - Louisiana and Quebec would take over the Great Lakes territories and merge into one nation - or Quebec would take the lead and all of this land would be Quebec - and then become independent from France herself. Instead of relying on support from the French homeland, they would build up their own population and military forces - their own Civ - I've thought about this often. America may have gone to war to gain this land but there is no guarantee they would be successful. America would not be a superpower today, just another European-size and style country. Vive New France or Greater Quebec, it's all theory but it's very interesting and fun. What a great alternate history novel this would make, or a Civ4 scenario... hmm...
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Bottom line, when in need of money the best thing to sell is something you don't properly own anyway...and this certainly qualified. When the Americans moved in after the purchase and told the natives 'this is ours we bought it from Napoleon' the natives uniformly replied 'who the *%^% is Napoleon?'
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Yeah, I was about to jump into the topic, then I saw the date.
Short version: Remember Mexican Texas? Probably would be something similar to that. The only difference is Mexico was at least its own nation with an interest in policing it. Much of Louisiana would fall to squatters with a whimper. New Orleans would be the only place of effective control and, as pointed out back in 2003, isn't all that useful if the British control the Caribbean.
Short version: Remember Mexican Texas? Probably would be something similar to that. The only difference is Mexico was at least its own nation with an interest in policing it. Much of Louisiana would fall to squatters with a whimper. New Orleans would be the only place of effective control and, as pointed out back in 2003, isn't all that useful if the British control the Caribbean.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
If the British had never taken French Canada there probably wouldn't be such a thing as a United States of America, and certainly not the one we're familiar with.
Might have been better off (being German)
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Without the USA the whole world would be German.
Or Communist. Historians are still in dispute over this.
This. French Louisiana was largely unpopulated by European settlers except for New Orleans and handful of other pockets. And there were no shortage of people like Aaron Burr and company who were plotting to march in and establish a new nation.
It happened after the American Civil War and resources like oil were not discovered until even later, so I don't think this would have impacted US history nearly as much as Louisiana did. You can probably develop several plausible alt-hist scenarios around the Russian Revolution in 1917, though, with Alaska being occupied by Canada or the USA, becoming a refuge for Tsarist loyalists, or even a Soviet foothold in the Americas.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Although it's worth noting that the qualification "European" carries more meaning than you might intend, because unlike the British, the French very carefully and deliberately cultivated an extensive network of alliance and patronage among the Indians of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi basin. It's plausible that if the French had maintained their position in North America (which would assume that the British were unable to effectively penetrate the interior) that we'd see the rise of a creole or mestizo society in Louisiana.
Unless we're simply assuming that Boney clung on to rump-New France in 1803, then, yeah, not happening. You'd be looking at a more colourful political geography in North America, no doubt, but nothing terribly dramatic. Probably less so than how things actually turned out; it's easy to forget, being as used to it as we, how very improbable the shape of the modern United States actually is.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Considering how many Germans (even, if, they're more or less assimilated into the larger entity of Americans) have went to the West and colonized it, I doubt we were that far from such a fate.
Similar threads
