Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would America be like today if the Haitian slave revolt wasn't successful?
Quote:
Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte had a vision of a renewed western empire for France, and his schemes included the recapture of Louisiana from Spain. Control over this vast territory would halt the westward expansion of the young United States and would supply French colonies in the West Indies with the goods they needed.
However, Napoleon's plan collapsed when the twelve-year revolt of slaves and free blacks in the French colony of Saint-Domingue succeeded, forcing French troops to return defeated to France and preventing them from reaching their ultimate destination--Louisiana--and from being able to defend it. As Napoleon's New World empire disintegrated, the loss of Haiti made Louisiana unnecessary.
Well the US would still want to purchase French territory in north America, and if it did not purchase it then the US would take it via force as the US had ambigious plans since its foundation to spread right across the continent. Just like the US went to war over Mexico over California as it was once part of Mexican terrority.
Napolean was always a person of vast nonsensical grandoise dreams that go way beyond the abilities he had. He was an excellent military leader, but one has only to look at his Russian or Egyptian campaigns to see what happens when he tries these dreams.
I don't think the Haiti revolts impacted the US at all, nor do I think Napolean had a chance in hell of expanding his new world empire. Napolean sold the French territory because France was bankrupt after a decade of war, and also because it was undefendable (Haitia helped his decision a bit, but was not the end all of his decision).
Imagine if Napoleon had actually brought his army to Louisiana! He'd have been even farther from home--cut off from his supply base by the Atlantic Ocean--than he was when he invaded Russia. In such an alternative version of history, the United States probably wouldn't have purchased Louisiana from France; we could have taken it outright.
Imagine if Napoleon had actually brought his army to Louisiana! He'd have been even farther from home--cut off from his supply base by the Atlantic Ocean.
Basically that's what happened in Egypt as well. The issue wasn't one of supply, because they could have occupied New Orleans (as he occupied Alexandria and Cairo), but one of lack of reinforcements and attrition. Didn't matter to Napolean, he abandoned his dwindling troops in Eqypt and called it a victory.
Basically that's what happened in Egypt as well. The issue wasn't one of supply, because they could have occupied New Orleans (as he occupied Alexandria and Cairo), but one of lack of reinforcements and attrition. Didn't matter to Napolean, he abandoned his dwindling troops in Eqypt and called it a victory.
After Nelson destroyed his fleet at the battle of the Nile(1798), there was little he could do, the French Navy was no match, and this led to his defeat at Acre in 1799.
It's interesting that had Napoleon not tried to reinstitute slavery in order to fund his ambitions in Europe, he may have enjoyed the benefits of a free colony in Haiti. It was this decision that led to his defeat in 1804.
Basically that's what happened in Egypt as well. The issue wasn't one of supply, because they could have occupied New Orleans (as he occupied Alexandria and Cairo), but one of lack of reinforcements and attrition. Didn't matter to Napolean, he abandoned his dwindling troops in Eqypt and called it a victory.
Napoleon knew he could not defeat the British Navy, he had been defeated in Egypt due Naval setbacks, and after the battle of Trafalgar (1805) both France and Spain had no chance to challenge British naval dominance.
After Nelson destroyed his fleet at the battle of the Nile(1798), there was little he could do, the French Navy was no match, and this led to his defeat at Acre in 1799.
Yeah Napolean's army was, for all purposes, stuck in Egypt after that naval defeat. But the French Navy could have been better prepared, or found a better defensable port...and Napolean takes some of the blame for not insisting that his Admiral take to a safe harbour, or at least anchoring closer to shore so the limey's couldn't take them from both sides.
Napolean's defeat in Acre again is due to one of his crazy dreams - that he can simply march a French army across the desert and just take all in his path, and finally march into India.
Yeah Napolean's army was, for all purposes, stuck in Egypt after that naval defeat. But the French Navy could have been better prepared, or found a better defensable port...and Napolean takes some of the blame for not insisting that his Admiral take to a safe harbour, or at least anchoring closer to shore so the limey's couldn't take them from both sides.
Napolean's defeat in Acre again is due to one of his crazy dreams - that he can simply march a French army across the desert and just take all in his path, and finally march into India.
I suspect that even with a different configuration in the harbor or if a better more defensible harbor had been available (which is doubtful) Nelsons audacity and unconventional tactics would have resulted in a similar outcome.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
