What If Wednesday: No Louisiana Purchase

In 1803, the United States purchased the Louisiana Territory from France, nearly doubling the size of the United States. The territory was originally settled by the French but had been a part of Spain since the end of the French and Indian War (Seven Years War). Under Napoleon, France regained the territory in 1800 with the dream of rebuilding their North American empire. Those dreams were dashed by a slave revolt in Haiti and an upcoming war with Britain. So when the Americans came with overtures about purchasing New Orleans, Napoleon threw in the entire territory as part of the deal. The rest, as they say, is history.

But what if Louisiana was never sold? There are several points of divergence to consider. Maybe the slave revolt in Haiti was easily defeated or never happened. Perhaps opposition to the purchase in America was too great for Thomas Jefferson to overcome. Or we could make it so that a United States still under the Articles of the Confederation and is too politically weak to make the purchase in the first place. Either way, Louisiana remains French territory. What happens next?

Perhaps the most plausible scenario is that nothing really changes all that much. The Native Americans, Mexico or British claims to Oregon did not stop American settlers in our history and a French Louisiana would unlikely stop them in this timeline. Louisiana might end up with a history similar to Florida with settlers carving out their own states and the French powerless to stop them. Although its possible some of these states might make a go for it on their own, most likely they would be annexed by the United States. Eventually France realizes they can't prevent the inevitable without a major war, so they sell whats left of Louisiana to the encroaching Americans while there is still something left to be sold.

The above scenario is not much different from our timeline. American westward expansion just takes a different path, but still happens more or less the same. On its face this might not seem very interesting, but you never know how minor changes can have drastic outcomes as history continues its divergence. Still, I rather spend more time on how Louisiana could stay French indefinitely.

I see two possible ways to make this happen and both center on how well the French defend New Orleans from the British. My assumption is that if Napoleon manages to hang onto Louisiana after 1803, the British would likely try to capture it once war begins again. Depending on whether the French defenders succeed or fail could establish the road Louisiana takes.

If New Orleans is captured by the British it would likely be occupied until Napoleon is defeated. The British may annex Louisiana, but since I want the territory to stay French, the British in this timeline will return it to France. Perhaps they wouldn't want to hassle of administering another French territory or else they would prefer it to act as a buffer to American westward expansion (still a possibility for a War of 1812-esque war in this timeline) without causing a renewed war with an America that feels encircled by the British. Britain guarantees Louisiana as French territory while the United States is mollified by at least having naviagation rights to the Mississippi and New Orleans.

If New Orleans is successfully defended, however, the territory would still likely revert back to Bourbon France once Napoleon is defeated. Whether it stays a part of France is another story. Enough soldiers loyal to Napoleon, who remember their valiant defense of New Orleans, might not want to be ruled again by the Bourbons and would revolt. Even if they don't revolt immediately, Louisiana could become a hotbed of dissent spurred on by ex-Grande Armée soldiers who immigrated from the continent. Depending on how French history plays out in this world, they could revolt later on. Britain (wanting to weaken their old rival) and America (wanting to have one less European power on their border) might even lend a hand.

Of course keeping it the the massive territory "French" over the ensuing centuries is nigh impossible, regardless of who is directly in charge. The French never had much success convincing large number of their citizens to leave Europe for the Americas. The French could look for settlers from elsewhere, maybe even from other Franco-Americans who could be directed to Louisiana instead of the places they went to in our timeline. Catholic Europeans might be lured in Louisiana in exchange for land and stories about the discrimination they would face from Protestant America.

Speaking of Protestant Americans, it is still unlikely in this scenario that Americans will just stop at the Mississippi and go not further. The French government could patrol the river and deport any illegal immigrants, but they probably couldn't stop everyone. Certain Native American tribes, however, could be courted and provided with materials and weapons in exchange for allegiance to Louisiana. Tribes pushed across the Mississippi by the Americans may also find potentials allies from the government in New Orleans. The French could thus make life very difficult for any Americans wishing to settle on the Great Plains.

What about Mexico? France intervened in Mexico in our timeline and they would have a power base in this timeline to do so again. If the French/Louisianans are ambitious enough they may try to rebuild their old empire in North America by conquering Latin America. Whether the British or the Americans would allow that is unlikely. Perhaps at the very least French/Louisianan machinations in Mexico would weaken and fracture the country. Some of these new state could be annexed into Louisiana (especially those with Pacific ports) while other might be propped up as buffers to Mexican revanchism. In fact places like Texas may even be used by the French to encourage Americans to settle elsewhere, thus relieving pressure on their eastern border.

What is America doing in this timeline? With the west blocked, the number of slave and free states in the Union will become unbalanced. Politics in Antebellum America involved keeping the peace between the North and the South and one way to do that was to make sure the Senate was equally split between free and slave states (see Compromise of 1820). Without western states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri and Texas, things will become unbalanced very quickly even without making Maine its own state. An earlier civil war could be a distinct possibility.

As a solution, Americans might turn their eyes southward and create states out of Cuba, Central America or even Latin America. At the very least they would want a Pacific port and land to maybe one day build a trans-ocean canal. Other compromises might be adopted like a federally recognized free slave colony. The Civil War may even be avoided altogether with slavery being phased out in the late 19th century after economic pressure forces slave holders to give up their slaves. This alternate America may be more interested in not only Latin American affairs, but colonial African affairs as well. America also would have to deal with large Catholic Hispanic populations a lot earlier than it did in our timeline.

There is still so much to talk about. I didn't even touch on what would happen if Napoleon had been victorious and still had Louisiana. What do you think about my scenario? What did I get right and what did I get wrong? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below and if want to submit your own scenario email me at ahwupdate at gmail dot com for a chance to be featured on the next What If Wednesday.

* * *

Matt Mitrovich is the founder and editor of Alternate History Weekly Update and a blogger on Amazing Stories. Check out his short fiction. When not writing he works as an attorney, enjoys life with his beautiful wife Alana and prepares for the inevitable zombie apocalypse. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter.

6 Common Mistakes Every American Revolution Alternate History Makes

Although American Civil War and World War II histories dominate the English-speaking world, stories about a stillborn United States are still quite common. Whether it happens because the Thirteen Colonies lose the American Revolutionary War or else the political upheaval that led to their independence is avoided through diplomacy, all the timelines lead to a world where North America from the Arctic to the Rio Grande remains under the Union Jack.

While these timelines have merit, both professional and fans authors often make the same mistakes, historical misconceptions and omissions again and again. To prevent this from happening in the future, here is a list of common mistakes found within American Revolution what ifs...

Florida

At some point, whatever government is created for British North America, they will want Florida. Sometimes they just take it or other times they buy it. Either way Florida will stop being Spanish not long after the POD. Except why would they need Spain need to hand it over in the first place? This is a mistake I find again and again with alternate American Revolution timelines and it needs to stop...now.

Here is what history tells us: at the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years War, Florida was ceded to Britain and was split into West and East Florida. The two Floridas remained loyal to Britain during the Revolutionary War, but in the end were ceded back to Spain after they had sided with the rebellious colonists. Much later West Florida rebelled against Spanish rule and was annexed by the United States, while East Florida was ceded to the United States in 1821.

In a timeline where Britain retains control of the Thirteen Colonies, Florida would have remained British because Spain would either have no war to join or else would have been on the losing side. The two Floridas would be components of whatever government is created for British North America and might even have special status in those versions that had a war since they had remained loyal. So please stop making this mistake before I start tearing my hair out.

Louisiana and the Great Plains

As British North America grows in these timelines it expands westward and (usually around 1803) decides it wants the port of New Orleans and the rest of the Great Plains. This proves quite simple since they usually just take it from those dastardly French (curse them!). But why would the French be there in the first place?

This does not happen as often as the Florida problem, but still often enough I feel I should address it. As we know, France ceded New Orleans and the Great Plains to Spain, who added it to the Viceroyalty of New Spain (a.k.a. Mexico) at the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years War. The territory remained under Spanish control until 1800 when France took back the territory under Napoleon who dreamed of building an empire in the Americas. A slave revolt in Haiti caused the Emperor to scrap those plans and instead sell the territory to the young American republic.

Having Louisiana become French again in a timeline where there is no United States assumes a lot events of OTL will still happen as scheduled, including the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon. Even if they did happen (which I will discuss later) it is hard to believe that Napoleon would want such a huge tract of land only lightly populated by Europeans that was surrounded on the north and east by the British. Most likely he would look elsewhere for his overseas empire and leave the land to the Spanish. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that the British Americans wouldn't want the strategic port of New Orleans, but it is still possible the land we know today as the "Louisiana Purchase" might be part of Mexico in one of these alternate timelines.

French Revolution and Napoleon

Speaking of the French, who incidentally were big supporters of the rebels, they end up in these timelines never spending all that cash propping up the Americans and thus never have the ton of debt that brings the French Revolution upon the royal houses of Europe. Enlightened monarchies continue to govern the world with democracy being nothing more than a quaint Ancient Greek custom and a young Corsican artillery officer dies of old age without anyone ever knowing his name

Of course, when has history ever been that simple? France's support of the Americans was just one of many causes that brought on the French Revolution and the lack of a Revolutionary War won't hand wave them away either (and its not like the monarchy would take all the extra money they saved to help the lower classes). Even a failed rebellion could still be disastrous for Louis XVI's rule if he still decided to intervene. The events and names might be different, but the French Revolutions could still happen and the chaos caused could allow a man like Napoleon to rise to power.

I admit one of the unwritten rules of alternate history is that nothing is inevitable, but we still need things to be plausible. A POD around the 1770s is not enough time to butterfly away an event that happened in 1789. In all likelihood, instead of defending New Orleans from the British, we could see Andrew Jackson take Orleans while leading an army of Red Coats. We have to remember that a good alternate history has to plausible and certain PODs will effect some historical events, but not others.

Canada

In these timelines, the great Dominion of British North America stretches from sea to shining sea. Members of Parliament gather in the capital, Georgetown (named after the great King George III), to celebrate another year as the most important member of the Empire. No one notices the politicians from the far northern provinces, but it is not like these men from the lightly populated, snowy wilderness have ever contributed anything significant to the Commonwealth. Right? RIGHT?!?!

One of the greatest flaws of American Revolution alternate histories is that they tend to be written by...well, Americans. These authors, however, remain surprisingly ignorant of the OTL British North America, or to put it another way, Canada. These timelines gloss over the northern half of British North America as almost if it doesn't matter and instead read more like an American history where everyone speaks with a British accent. This is especially important with timelines where recognizable historical figures still make cameos, but you rarely see Canadian VIPs in positions of importance.

While I will admit that the center of power might shift to the south in an enlarged British North America, how can one of the world's largest economies and most cultural diverse OTL countries not have an impact at all in a world where America remained under British rule? The city of Toronto alone is the fourth largest city in North America, which would make it the third largest city in a British North America (beating out my hometown of Chicago) and making it a significant region in politics. I guess what I am trying to say is that ignorance of Canadian history is not an excuse for your implausible alternate history.

Native Americans

Another group who is ignored in these alternate histories (and history in general for that matter) are Native Americans. In timelines where the Thirteen Colonies stay British, their history tends to parallel OTL history, that is if the author decides to mention them at all. Essentially they remain non-entities in these universes.

Now the Native Americans were treated rough by most Europeans, but the British did try to normalize relations with the tribes with the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which established the Indian Reserve that stretched from the Great Lakes to West Florida. The proclamation was controversial to the colonials and was one of the causes of the American Revolution. Most Native Americans east of the Mississippi sided with the British during the Revolutionary War and after the war were eventually driven west and forced to settle in reservations far from their ancestral homes.

In these alternate histories, however, it is unlikely the British would radically change their policy to Native Americans if they maintained control of the lands east of the Mississippi. In fact we might see the British grant autonomy to the most powerful and loyal tribes, much like the princely states of India of OTL. This policy might even be carried west if British North America expands that far leading to an ethnically diverse North America where Native Americans exercise more political power than they did in OTL. That sounds like a much more interesting alternate history to me.

The British Empire

Above is a political map of the world of The Two Georges, with the British Empire in red. Despite some loses in Africa, the British Empire is excessively larger than it was in OTL. In fact, most American Revolution alternate histories lead to an enlarged British Empire. But how plausible is it for the British Empire to be this large?

In a world where the Thirteen Colonies stay British, the Crown would need (if I can quote the late Warren Zevon) lawyers, guns and money to maintain their rule. If they are spending these resources on British North America, they would not be able to spend it elsewhere. Consider how different the history of Australia would be. Before the American Revolution, thousands of criminals had been sent to the Americas by the British. After the loss of the Thirteen Colonies, the British found replacement colonies in Australia. In a world, however, where they never lost their original penal colonies, there would be less interest about settling Australia and thus all or some of it could have been gobbled up by another Europe power.

The same can go for other important British colonies as well. A world without the French Revolution and/or Napoleon (if they for some reason do not happen) would not give the British the excuse to take South Africa from the Dutch. Plus considering the economic potential of the lands that make up the OTL USA and Canada, it might not be India that will gain the title of "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire. In fact this same economic potential might even give some alternate leaders the motivation to try and break from the empire and could potentially cause an earlier collapse of the British Empire.

Conclusion

All of the above are either outright mistakes, historical misconceptions or overlooked people/ideas that are common to American Revolution alternate histories. The best way to avoid them, in my humble opinion, is to do your research when you set out to create your timeline. Remember, as Mark Twain once said: "It's not what you don't know that kills you, it's what you know for sure that ain't true."

* * *

Matt Mitrovich is the founder and editor of Alternate History Weekly Update and a blogger on Amazing Stories. His new short story "Road Trip" can be found in Forbidden Future: A Time Travel Anthology. When not writing he works as an attorney, enjoys life with his beautiful wife Alana and prepares for the inevitable zombie apocalypse. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter.

The Louisiana Purchase Revisited Part 1: What If Napoleon Bonaparte Sent the Leclerc Expedition to Louisiana?

Guest post by Thomas Christian Williams.

Spain’s secret retrocession of Louisiana Territory to France in 1800 gave Napoleon Bonaparte a unique opportunity—to challenge the United States for control of North America.  For three long years the ambitious Premier Consul held the destiny of the New World—perhaps the entire world—in his all-encompassing hands.  Then, faced by the return of war with England and unable to send troops to occupy the territory military, Bonaparte spun around faster than an alligator and sold Louisiana to Thomas Jefferson.

Didn’t Bonaparte see the long-range consequences of his hasty decision?  Could the territory, reinforced with French troops, have withstood a British blockade and American invasion?  What would the world look like today if Bonaparte had gone to New Orleans himself to establish a New French Republic in the very heart of North America?

After many false starts Bonaparte gave the job of occupying Louisiana to General Claude Victor in June 1802.  Victor’s expedition, comprised of some 3000 troops, assembled in the port of Helvoet Sluys near Rotterdam that fall and winter.  But logistical and weather concerns delayed Victor’s departure until the following spring.  And by then it was too late.  Bonaparte had made his decision.  Louisiana was sold and the Victor expedition never set sail.

From an alternate history viewpoint, Bonaparte’s best opportunity to occupy Louisiana came about a year and a half earlier during the fall of 1801.  The Peace of Amiens ending the war with England had just been signed, eliminating the threat posed by the Royal Navy.  The way was open for Bonaparte to rebuild France’s New World Empire, composed largely Saint Domingue (Haiti) and Guadeloupe, two once-lucrative sugar islands, and now Louisiana.

Which to occupy first?  Both Saint Domingue and Guadeloupe were under the control of former slaves and there was a powerful Creole lobby in Paris (including Bonaparte’s wife Josephine) clamoring for the return of their “property.”  As for Louisiana, Bonaparte had yet to receive legal title to the territory due to an irritating clause in the retrocession treaty that required him to obtain an Italian province for the Duke of Parma, Louisiana’s disposed regent.

As is often the case, greed trumped vision.  Setting aside the Louisiana option for the moment, Bonaparte sent an expedition comprised of some 20,000 troops to Saint Domingue in an ultimately futile attempt to return the blacks to slavery.  This expedition, headed by General Charles Leclerc, Bonaparte’s brother-in-law, represented the Premier Consul’s best opportunity to occupy Louisiana with a powerful force of crack troops.  This possibility, however remote, was a cause of concern in both London and Washington, D.C.

True enough, such a sneaky action would have enraged the Court of Madrid—but so what?  Respect for diplomatic niceties was never Bonaparte’s strong suit.  And besides, what could Spain have really done about it if a powerful French army had occupied New Orleans just a tad before the legal transfer of Louisiana had been finalized?

An intriguing question arises at this point: What if Bonaparte had somehow known the Leclerc expedition to Saint Domingue was destined to fail?  Might he have decided to send Leclerc directly to New Orleans instead?

Enter a once famous French philosopher and politician, Constantin-Francois Volney, author of the controversial book Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history anonymously translated into English by Thomas Jefferson.

Asked for his opinion before Leclerc set sail, Volney advised Bonaparte that the Saint Domingue expedition was destined to fail for three reasons: the blacks would launch a guerilla war against the French occupation army, yellow fever would decimate Bonaparte’s white-skinned troops and the British crown could, at the drop of a tricorn hat, impose a blockade upon the island due to the Royal Navy’s command of the high seas.  For good measure Volney added that French colonists had always failed in all their North American endeavors because “they spend all their time gossiping with each other or chasing Indian girls” while the Anglo-Saxons work in the fields.

Enraged by this insolent analysis, Bonaparte dismissed Volney as a “philosophical dreamer” and ordered the expedition to proceed anyway, a decision which led to Leclerc’s death and the near-total destruction of his army due to guerilla war and yellow fever, just as Volney predicted.  On the flip side, if Leclerc had gone directly to Louisiana instead, a war with the Americans would almost certainly have followed.  Even so, Leclerc’s 20,000 troops would have had time to prepare defensive positions both above and below New Orleans, a formidable barrier as the British later discovered at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815.

So what prevented Bonaparte from seeing the opportunity of sending Leclerc directly to New Orleans?  The simple truth is Napoleon Bonaparte was never a true “republican” who believed in representative government, free trade and freedom for oppressed peoples including the slaves.  From the very beginning Bonaparte planned to reestablish the Old Regime—including its mercantile-based colonial empire—only with his own Corsica-born clan seated at the top of the pyramid.

Hence, for alternate historians, what seems like the most obvious choice for Bonaparte to make—to send Leclerc to Louisiana rather than Saint Domingue—is in fact quite impossible due to Bonaparte’s insatiable personal ambitions.  Bonaparte was Bonaparte after all—don’t ask a scorpion to stop acting like a scorpion.

In short, blinded by his own greed, Bonaparte never considered doing what many French alive today wished he had done: sailed to New Orleans to found a New French Republic, thus preventing the construction of today’s world-dominating American Empire.

(End of Part 1.  In Part 2, Volney establishes a New French Republic in Louisiana, thus provoking Bonaparte to sail to New Orleans to overthrow Volney’s rebel government.)

* * *

Thomas Christian Williams works in the political section of the U.S. Embassy in Paris, France.  His first novel, English Turn: Napoleon Invades Louisiana, is available on Amazon.  He is currently working on a second novel: Kash Kachu (White House): In the desert southwest about a thousand years ago, two half-brothers fight for control of an ancient holy city racked by drought, famine and disbelief.  Join him on Twitter @RuinsofEmpires.