To: Michael D Brazier 
MDB>Reply-To: r_catholic-l{at}yahoogroups.com

MDB>> But Napoleon DID send an army to Haiti -- and it got there safely.
MDB>> It was rendered virtually helpless by disease and destroyed by
MDB>> Toussaint L'Overture's rebels, of course.  But that same army in
MDB>> New Orleans might have changed history.

MDB>How would it have done so?  Napoleon's reasons for selling Louisiana to the
MDB>wouldn't have been altered just because a French army was in New Orleans.
MDB>would still have needed the cash in hand, to pay for his wars, more than he
MDB>needed the undeveloped territory in North America.

He would have had Louisiana, which was worth far more than he sold it
for.  With an army there to protect France's interests, and the
engineering skills that army would have, he could have made Louisiana
into the rich Empire the Americans made of it -- with smaller forces,
less engineers, and so on.

MDB>Or are you supposing that Toussaint L'Overture's success in Haiti played a
MDB>in Napoleon's calculations, which it would not have played if the French ar
MDB>had not gone to Haiti?

Yes.  Napoleon focussed on Haiti.  Look at Haiti today.  Look at
the area of the Louisiana Territory today.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5