Hi Neocon; Re: "I did not set any dates for possible annexation, but was thinking of the long run prospect of France holding the territory without substantial immigration."
Good question. But Canada still has parts where French is widely spoken, and I would guess that Louisiana would have retained French culture until late enough that annexation would be no more thinkable than the annexation of Canada is now.
Re: "Since I doubt that, even during a truce, Napoleon would have left the Continent practically underdefended against the British, I question how big an armada he would have sent to protect New Orleans."
Napoleon, like Hitler, relied on his armies, not his navies, to defend Europe. And in point of fact, one of the largest sea battles of the Napoleonic wars came about off the Nile, quite some ways from his Continental power centers. That was in 1798, at a time when France and Britain were hot at war. He sent 13 ships of 74 guns or larger. The US, in 1803, had zero ships larger than 44 guns.
During the War of 1812, the British completely blockaded the US with a devastating loss of American trade. As an example of number of ships required to do this, Boston, one of the primary ports of the US, was successfully blockaded by the British ships Shannon and Tenedos. The Shannon had 52 guns, and was a pygmy compared to the ships Napoleon sent to Egypt. The Tenedos was a dinky 38 gun frigate. My reason for picking this particular blockade was because it resulted in the famous last words "Don't Give Up the Ship". Blockading the significant ports on the American coast was well within the capabilities of the French navy. Both sides knew this quite well.
Getting on to the subject of guerilla war, Napoleon, and the question of his likelihood of sending armies to the New World, at the time these negotiations were under way, the slave revolt in Haiti was in a quiet period, and it probably looked to the negotiators that France would win. It was Napoleon who'd sent the first 22,000 soldiers to Haiti in 1799, and 71,000 of his soldiers died there. To put these numbers in perspective, total American combat losses during the Revolutionary War were about 4400, but this doesn't included those died of disease.
The simple fact is that it was not American military power that won the Revolution, it was, instead, a combination of guerilla war and French naval power. And Napoleon not only could send huge armies to the New World in 1803, he did.
What I've shown here is that even while defending Europe, Napoleon had proved himself quite willing to send ships and men abroad, and in amounts more than large enough to devastate the US. Your suggestion that he couldn't do it is about as wise as those Argentine generals who recently believed that Britain wouldn't cross the Atlantic to kick their asses. Similarly, if Lawrence hadn't been a big idiot, he wouldn't have had to have his dying words be an impossible request that his ship not be surrendered to the British. It's patriots like that, who overestimate American abilities, that get American kids killed in losing battles.
It's like you are unaware of the essentials of the geopolitical situation of the time. France and Britain were superpowers. The US was just a backwater.
Re: "As for your hobby horse of guerrilla warfare, it is likely, in so comparatively barbarous an age, to have been met with ethnic cleansing, sending the French back to their homeland, until there was no one left to fight."
The basic problem with your analysis is that it fails to appreciate the simple fact that France had sea power that the US could only dream about. Invading New Orleans just wasn't on the list of options at the time.
Re: "Of course, given our experience in annexing Mexican territory such as California, which was not met with endless guerilla war, I doubt your premise anyway."
The Mexican government signed over the territory of California at the end of a war where they were soundly defeated. At the time they signed it away, gold had already been discovered. In the time frame that any guerilla war would have been fought (i.e. the next three years), there were already something like 20x as many Americans moved there as the total Hispanic population in 1848. Before the gold rush, California was an empty territory, not a civilized state able to run a guerilla war.
Besides, the simple fact is that before the Mexican war even started, California (led by mostly Anglos but also such important Mexicans as the military governor) had revolted from Mexican rule and formed a Republic. The state was taken with hardly any bloodshed.
The differences between the annexation of California and the invasion of Iraq are rather significant, LOL. Here's a short list:
(a) California didn't have any WMDs, LOL.
(b) Iraq has 25,000,000 whacky Iraqis, California had something like 10,000 fairly sane Mexicans.
(c) California had no army, and the state was taken with very little combat.
(d) California had a substantial American / English speaking population that was booming in size as new immigrants moved there.
(e) California was in the immediate sphere of influence of the US, rather than all the way across the globe.
(f) The religious differences between the Americans and Mexicans were much smaller in California than Iraq.
(g) The US was under much looser international restrictions on doing stuff like making prisoners wear women's underwear and other harsh measures in 1848 than in 2003.
(g) The US population's support for guerilla wars in general was higher at the time.
-- Carl
P.S. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. |
