Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (139061)	7/7/2004 11:40:45 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Neocon; Re: "Do you think that Napoleon would have risked losing Europe to defend Louisiana? My only point is that the strategic situation favored the United States, with a multitude of potential supply lines and a growing population, and therefore that it was a pretty good deal for Napoleon." As usual, you sadly misunderstand the difficulties involved in conquering and holding territory. The French speaking inhabitants of New Orleans would probably have kicked us out, if we'd gone over there with an army of occupation. Armies of occupation who occupy territory held by a different ethnic group (i.e. English speaking soldiers in a French speaking territory), and who took over the land by a war that was fairly quiet, tend to be confronted with vigorous and long lived guerilla warfare. An occupation of New Orleans, with American lines of supply so difficult, would be a prime example of a difficult to win occupation. But that's not the real reason that the Americans were so happy to get Napoleon to sign. At the time of the signing, Napoleon was again at peace with Britain. If the Americans had instead decided to take the territory by force, they would have found themselves faced with a naval force far, far, far larger than anything the US could put up in return. The negotiators would have had very recent experience of the devastating naval blockade by Britain during the Revolution, and would have seen the small amount of money paid for Louisiana as much less expensive. Of course they could not have been aware that Britain and France were about to begin the phase of the Napoleonic wars known as the "3rd coalition", or that Britain would eventually be the victor. But even if they had that sort of prescience, and even if they'd been as stupid as Bush in Iraq as far as ignoring the likelihood of effective guerilla war, I doubt that they would have invaded New Orleans. This is because of our relationship with the great powers at the time. The US, in 1803, had rather frosty relations with Britain and, other than the quasi war with France of 1799, slowly improving relations with France. Note that the quasi war began before Napoleon took command in late 1799, and ended soon afterwards, so he was not associated with the events that led up to it. France had helped us during the Revolution, and was then a (more or less) democratic government (well, at least in name). So with Britain about to undertake a massive effort to put a King back on the throne of France, there was no way in Hell that the US would have wanted to piss off the only other major western Republic on the planet. Sure, with hindsight, you could say that even if the US had never made the purchase, and never invaded, the US might have eventually ended up with the territory due to the actions of settlers, as happened with Texas. But that sort of hindsight was not available in the spring of 1803. And the argument fails in important aspects, such as our failure to take over Canada despite our out growing them. I should note that in 1803 the French navy, which had withered under the misrule of their revolution, was again being improved by Napoleon. That fleet was significant enough that its defeat in 1805 at Trafalgar is considered to be the most significant naval battle of the 19th century. If the US and France had started duking it out, there would always be the chance that Britain would sit back, and pick up the pieces later. With this kind of international environment, it would have required a man like Bush to decide to turn down Napoleon's offer of New Orleans, free and clear, no need for a chancy military occupation, and no need to piss off the only other significant democratic government in the world. By the way, Napoleon declared himself emperor, but only some time after the signing of the Louisiana purchase. At the time of the purchase, I believe his title was "consul", a term from the ancient Roman republics. -- Carl