To: 
From: "Vern Humphrey" 
Reply-To: r_catholic-l{at}yahoogroups.com

To: seanmbrook{at}aol.com [mailto:seanmbrook{at}aol.com]
> >
> > VH> Louisiana was the outlet of most American trade.  That, in
> itself, was
> > a lucerative prize -- the French could have expanded and
> profited from it.
> > AND a large Napoleonic Army would have been very difficult for
> the British
> > to dislodge.
>
>  Very intriguing.  Even if Napoleon, for all his daring
>  and imagination, hadn't thought of that, didn't anyone
>  around him think of something like this?

I'm not sure Napoleon encouraged that kind of input.
>
>  Hmmm, I assume a really large force (for those times)
>  would be about 50,000 troops.  But wouldn't most of
>  them have had to be dispersed in garrisons?  A British
>  army larger than any single garrison might have done
>  much damage.  And New Orleans would be vulnerable
>  from attack by a combined Army and Navy operation.
>  Much like what the British did to the Danes at Copen-
>  hagen.  How might this have been parried?

First of all, how would such a British Army land?  The approach and landing
would necessarily be quite risky, and the French would likely have
intelligence that would put them on guard.

Secondly, the dispersal would work in the favor of the French -- they might
lose a few units, but in the process, the rest would be warned and could
assemble.

Third, they would be operating in a friendly population -- which could be
called on to provide militia (as they did in 1814/5).

Finally, New Orleans is not Copenhagen.  The approach to the city requires
sailing about a hundred miles up the Mississippi river -- no in-and-out
like Copenhagen.
>
>  Moreover, any French soldiers might have been
>  given grants of land on discharge from the service
>  in Louisiana?  Including exemption from taxes  On
>  condition, say, that once in a generation one of
>  the males of the family did military service?  The
>  Eastern Roman Empire had a similar system for
>  the wars against the Muslims.  And as long as the
>  system was properly kept up, it was a big factor
>  in why the Empire survived so long.

And it would have worked in Louisiana like gangbusters!  Especially if
wives had been imported.
>
>  Think something like this might have worked for
>  France in Louisiana against the British and US?

Certainly.  In fact, given a choice between having the French in Louisiana
and the British in Canada on the one hand, and having the British own BOTH
Louisiana and Canada, the US would have chosen the former.
>
> > VH> Look at it through Jefferson's eyes as he saw it in 1802.  He only
> > wanted
> > New Orleans, and wanted that so American goods could be transshipped to
> > ocean transport.  He had no inkling we could get all of
> Louisiana, and might
> > have been satisfied wiht an enclave in New Orleans, perhaps on a 99 year
> > lease. Napoleon could easily have graned that.
> >
>  Yep!  Jefferson only wanted New Orleans.  It was
>  amazingly shortsighted of Napoleon not to have
>  seen he didn't NEED to sell Louisiana.

There is a guardian angel that looks after the United States.
>
> > VH> Consider also that Americans would have to decide; WHICH
> foreign nation
> > do
> > we want to control Louisiana, Engalnd or France?  Remember,
> England ALREADY
> > had Canada.  If she had Louisiana too, where would that leave the US?
> >
>  Because British control of both Canada and Louisiana
>  would have forced the US to play second fiddle to the
>  British?  Whereas, even if France remained ruler of
>  Louisiana the US could hope to play France off against
>  the British.  Yes, I can see that.

With Britaini owning Louisiana we would have been hemmed in forever -- no
expansion to the west coast.  Our very existance would have been more and
more problematical.
>
> > VH> Remember also, only 9 years after the Louisiana Purchase,
> we went to war
> > with England, not with France.
> >
>  I know. But that was partly because Napoleon out-
>  witted and outmaneuvered James Madison.  First,
>  he too impressed US citizens for the French Navy
>  like the British.  Then, choosing just the right time,
>  he "gave in" to US demands.  Iow, to make the
>  British look bad and increase the chances of the
>  US declaring war on the UK.

But the British truly WERE the greater danger, and the biggest culprits.
After all, to this day OUR law allows us to draft foreigners, but not to
take men off ships on the high seas for military or naval service.
>
> > VH> Clearly, Jefferson's words that we must "marry ourselves to
> the British
> > nation and fleet" were NOT an offer of alliance to the British
> -- they were
> > meant only for French ears, as a bluff.
> >
>  First, did Jefferson ever say he only meant that
>  famous statement as deception?  Second, he
>  would have been wise to at least keep an alliance
>  with the UK as an OPTION.
>
I think it's pretty obvious -- Jefferson was playing the British against the French.
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Where Catholic Singles Go Online - StRaphael.net is the world's #1 website
for single Catholics. If you are looking for friendship, marriage or even a
religious vocation, StRaphael.cnet is the place to be. Join Today Free!
www.StRaphael.net
http://us.click.yahoo.com/r_NezC/1M1FAA/EDtLAA/28VolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Visit R_Catholic-L member homepages at: http://home.cox.rr.com/rraphael
http://rcatholic-l.freeservers.com
http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz
http://www.lisaslighthouse.org
http://members.aol.com/SisterNeri/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4