Napoleon sold this for less than three cents per acre

>so fucking anglo that they even betray others of their kind
>act surprised when they stab you in the back as soon as they can

We couldn't even win the war of 1812 let alone send troops to die for a failing leader.

We were willing to send troops to North Africa to fight pirates, why not a volunteer company to Europe?

Well look at it this wayear would you rather sell it to the Americans or lose it to the British

Imagine Napoleon winning and then invading USA with the Grande Armée as payback.

He'd take every US city in a few weeks.

US idea of war was a few hundred men shooting at eachother with some muskets and one or two cannons. Basically just small skirmishes.

Americans had no idea what real European warfare looked like, Britain had nothing on Russia, Prussia or France.

goddamnit

Eh, I'm not familiar, but I imagine it's a lot easier to convince Congress to send troops to fight some pirates than take sides in a large international conflict.

>Britain had nothing
Britain won the war.

lel Britain could not compete with the European powers on land

The US backing France in the war was never part of the deal (although they eventually did when they attacked Britain in 1812)

It was like 100 Marines and it was because it directly benefited us. That was the extent of power projection the US could muster at the time. 100 marines and a couple boats.

Important quastion - WHAT was sold. How many Frenchmen were living here and what size their army size? I guess it was copy of memetic "trading" Alaska with 300 Russian settlers.

>The US backing France in the war was never part of the deal

A military alliance was in fact part of the deal, since it was likely that Spain will invade USA, or that Britain will invade France.

France barely had anyone living there except for New Orleans
They didn't have any real control of it either, it was quick money or war with the US in the future

The registered population was 30000 slaves, 20000 spanish, and 10000 french or some such, from memory. I can't find the numbers now.

They had 30000 soldiers, cannons and ships nearby on Haiti.
They most definitely could've reacted, Britain bullied the USA with an effectively weaker force.

You're absolutly right but look at what happened in Haiti at the time

The fucking yellow plague happened, not a military defeat.

Congratulations. You are now aware that disease killed more men than battle in every theater of the Napoleonic wars. Saying that it's not fair is bootless. It isn't fair. But it's really hard to project force across those kinds of distances with early 19th century technology, and France can't really hold onto Louisiana if the U.S. just decides to walk in.

>WHAT was sold

The internationally recognized claim on the land
It's that which really defines what belongs or not to a country, not settlers
Tons of current countries have huge chunks of unsettled land (Canada, Russia, America, Algeria, Brazil...etc)
What belongs to a country is defined by internationally recognized claim on the land

>and France can't really hold onto Louisiana if the U.S. just decides to walk in.

Provided France is at war in Europe
But if for any reason peace happens there, the US literally cease to exist
Quite a risky gamble

But it wouldn't have killed them if they were fighting americans in the USA rather than haitans in San Domingo's jungles.

No
The British would have taken it all anyway, and he got enough money to outfit La Grande Armee

your'e sure?

France wouldn't have been able to hold all that territory anyway. Napoleon cashed out before he lost it all >for free.

It's not like the US was in any position to be a real help to Napoleon regardless.

You could argue that the US did aid Napoleon indirectly by declaring war on the British for the War of 1812, which did divert British resources, sailors, and soldiers to deal with the US in North America while fighting in the 6th Coalition. But even then the US couldn't make any gains against Britain, and had to accept a status quo for peace.

>But if for any reason peace happens there, the US literally cease to exist

And the British allow the French to embark on such a naval expedition, and Napoleon can keep a costly, largely valueless war to himself going for however long it takes to subdue the U.S., while trying to transport a force numbering in the tens of thousands across the entire Atlantic.

Just like tens of thousands of Le Grande Armee weren't dying of disease every year in Europe? Oh wait, that was a thing, wasn't it.

Pack thousands of men together in cramped conditions with medical knowledge and hygenic standards of the 1810s, and you're going to get epidemics, whether you're in the tropics or in the temperates.

Well, other than a quick injection of cash for a government that needed it quite badly.

Lel

>And the British allow the French to embark on such a naval expedition,

What if the British ally the French in hope to take back the 13 colonies?

Extremely unlikely. Sure, they would probably want those colonies back, but helping France, when France is in a legitimate position to threaten Britain in an existential manner, isn't in the cards. The entirety of British foreign policy is to prevent any one power from becoming dominant in Europe, and France is the one with that potential in the beginning of the 19th century.

>What if the allies and the axis team up on spain.
That's you,that's how dumb you sound.

>people actually think this way
paradox games were a fucking mistake

Explicate.

Back then, alliances in Europe changed all the time, and faster than you could imagine

By the way, the initial post ( ) was assuming that Europe was back to peace
In this context, it isnt so farfecthed to see France and Britain unite to take down a common enemy
Attacking an european power that isnt already involved in a major conflict in Europe would be suicidal for the early US

remove maize

>internationally recognized claim on the land
Lol, what a bullshit.

It's not treason when the State itself is wrong. This was perfectly explicated in the Declaration, which you ought to read for the first time in your life.

Because we were a fledgling nation and choosijg the wrong side would risk possibly being destroyed. Even though it's not totally historically accurate, I would urge you to go watch the HBO mini-series John Adams to get a view of the factions in our government post-revolution and learn about the factions in the U.S. government post-revolution. Washington and Adams were strictly in favor of neutrality. Hamilton was pro-England. Jefferson was pro-France up until the quasi-war and then Napoleon went full empire instead of Republican, but he still maintained a hate-boner for England. Overall, maintaining neutrality was probably the best course even though it ultimately only lasted until 1812. Still, we were in a much better position to fight England after 30 years than 10-15.

t. Anglo

The US wasn't considered a threat and there's no way too historic world power rivals would "team up" to fight them when they have their own grand strategy to worry about

It would be like China and the USA "teaming up" to beat Vietnam

>too

*two

Britain would never allow France to gain a foothold anyway. The US would probably have British support in any case. This is pointless.

>68 million francs
>didn't back his war effort
Are you legitimately retarded?

There was no alliance regarding the Louisiana Purchase. Absolutely none. It was purely a land deal.

>he gets money in return for thousings of miles of empty wasteland he has no use for and cannot access

Seems a win to me

>Napoleon sold this for less than three cents per acre
>the USA didn't even back his war effort in return
The USA had no reason to. At the time the land was only inhabited by native tribes and a few towns, it was only really worth 3 cents an acre.

>Fighting some unorganized Arab pirates is equivalent to going to war with the entire British Empire

When Spain gave it to France, they said it must NOT be resold.
So when France resold it, it was thought Spain will retaliate and attack the USA to get it back.
The American senate or however you call that body was arguing that they are paying a large amount of money just to get in war with Spain and lose the gains.
It was a controversial decision that many American politicians and notable persons opposed exactly because it would mean war with Spain.
So the deal included a defense pact, such that France guarantees Spain won't invade. And a few days, fucking DAYS after the defense pact, Britain declares war on France, and the USA does not back them.

In fact, the sale from USA to France was made with a British loan, such that Napoleon got some sum of money per month from the British bank, and not a boat of American cash.
There was a big risk that Napoleon won't see any of his money at all, but the Bank moved to continental Europe and kept paying from there.

There are even people that claim the British declared war so that the French won't get their money at all, and certainly government tried to do that, outlawing money payments to France.

>It's not like the US was in any position to be a real help to Napoleon regardless.

They could've invaded Canada, they could've helped on Saint Dominic.

This is what Napoleon himself suggested to the British public in his propaganda, while preparing to invade them.
Good thing you weren't in charge of the island back then.

The Berbers captured a few ships, actually. It wasn't a one sided war.

Also, reminder that the one "crusaders vs jihad" map that keeps getting reposted includes the USA navy invading Morocco to set fire to pirate boats as Jihad. Fucking Alahu Burgers.

>There was no alliance regarding the Louisiana Purchase. Absolutely none. It was purely a land deal.

See There was a point about France protecting USA from Spain. This is done with a defensive pact. The two republics against the monarchies and so on.

Not really, selling it was smart because it would most certantly be conquered by the british during the Napoleonic wars. The only mistake might have been the price

Broadway

>which country destroyed the British empire

France and Britain allied many times during their rivalry, sometimes even against something as insignificant as the Dutch

>There was a big risk that Napoleon won't see any of his money at all, but the Bank moved to continental Europe and kept paying from there.

Can't outjew the jew

>the Grand Armee didn't die in Russia

>DEIC
>insignificant

France had never ever really bothered to consolidate 'its' North American territorial claims. By this time it had already lost Quebec (another territory it gave few shits about). It 'owned' the territory in name, and had a very sparse presence of traders and soldiers (mostly locally-born French, like Quebecois or Métis who were not French subjects anymore). New Orleans and the Parishes (mostly settled by expelled French Canadians) was the only exception, being a port city, but it was already pretty multi-culti.

From Napoleon's POV, it was just a big under-producing territory that France had poor access to, and the writing was on the wall: the place was crawling with Indians and Anglo settlers. Of course it was a bargain for the young US, but France had no other option either. Sell it or let it be lost by attrition.

Sugar-producing colonies in the Caribbean were still valuable and where French 'American' focus was, when at all.

It was either sell the place to the Americans, or lose it to the British. Not to mention that it wasn't doing much for France financially, all the money was in Guadeloupe and Martinique.

Literally his intention was 3d chess. He sold the land to the Americans for two reasons.
1. The Haitian revolution showed that France was weak at power projection across the atlantic and the British Navy was dominant compounding the issue.
2. France was in debt and while New Orleans and Haiti were extremely profitable if an enemy or local seized either they couldn't profit from it anymore. So why not sell it for money now and let the Americans defend it?
1. to create border tension and sparking a war between GB and the US. That war came in 1812 just when Napoleon needed pressure removed in Iberia during the Russian campaign.

>There was a point about France protecting USA from Spain
No, there wasn't.