Greatest beneficiary of the Louisiana Purchase?

[Albany Rifles]

What if Napoleon hadn't been able to hold it? Wouldnt that of been a disaster of the USA? I think Napoleon and the US won and Britain lost. We might of found ourselves encircled.

Do you mean hold Louisianna? Its because he knew he couldn't that he sold it to the US. He figured he might as well get money for something he couldn't control. Britain did not have the power to control it since it had insufficient force in Canada to influence the entire area...it could only nibble at the fringes. It did not have enough manpowerto counterbalance the US population and still fight in Spain. And the events on the Continent prevented Britain from paying for sodliers from elsewhere to fight in NA. Spain was too weak...Spanish Florida would fall to the US within a few years.

We were slowing moving into the hinterland. We had breached the Appalaichains (albeit in violation of treaties in some areas) but we had the Old Northwest under our control. This controlled ther headwaters of the Mississippi River.

[Roosveltrepub]

What if Napoleon hadn't been able to hold it? Wouldnt that of been a disaster of the USA? I think Napoleon and the US won and Britain lost. We might of found ourselves encircled.

[Johnny W]

It was legal for him to kill Hamilton (in a duel), it wasn't legal for him to start his own little wars.

It might have been legal, but it doomed him regarding further political office. I seriously doubt he would have ever tried the other stuff had he not killed Hamilton.

I thought it was his killing Hamilton that was the real Albatross.

It was legal for him to kill Hamilton (in a duel), it wasn't legal for him to start his own little wars.

[Johnny W]

Burr got nothing but trouble out of Louisina. He was tried for treason over his activities and even though acquited he never was a public figure of any stature again. He fled to Europe right after the trial to escape his creditors. he eventually got thrown out of Europe and came back to America where he had to live under an assumed name.

Louisana was an albatross around Burr's neck.

I thought it was his killing Hamilton that was the real Albatross.

[Albany Rifles]

Aaron Burr benefited the most. Well planned to get the most out of it. He was going to make another government and country out of it.

Burr got nothing but trouble out of Louisina. He was tried for treason over his activities and even though acquited he never was a public figure of any stature again. He fled to Europe right after the trial to escape his creditors. he eventually got thrown out of Europe and came back to America where he had to live under an assumed name.

Louisana was an albatross around Burr's neck.

[reve893]

Aaron Burr benefited the most. Well planned to get the most out of it. He was going to make another government and country out of it.

[Ironduke]

I would characterize his wars as being self-destructive in 1803, without the ill-thought out invasion of Russia, Napoleon's Empire could have very well continued on past 1814/15.

Err... meant to say wouldn't.

[Albany Rifles]

Jefferson in particlar and the country in general

1. It ensures that a waterway to the outside world was opened from the Great Lakes all the way to the Gulf. 31 current states are drained by the Mississippi...half our country was able to sen dgoods and servies down it.

2. Jefferson gained politically and his party gained prominence through this farflung acquisition. America gained sovereignty over the continents second largest city (New Orleans) and opened the way for the eventual acquition of Spanish Florida through a similar method.

[RustyBattleship]

Thomas Jefferson without a doubt. Napoleon needed a lot of money to carry on his war with England. Sale of the Louisiana Territory gave him much needed funds AND less acreage to try to control domestically.

That territory now became part of the United States of America. A great political data base as well as pioneer expansion without needing permission from a foreign country to do so.

IF Napoleon held onto the Louisiana Territory, and still lost the war (which he did) England would have had a legal claim to it. As it is, they tried in the War of 1812 but with the combined resistance of the Louisiana Territory and the rest of the "Colonies" it was more than they could chew.

Besides, the French pirate cannoneers under Jean Lafitte in the 1815 Battle of New Orleans had a field day that sealed Britain's fate from American control forever. Even under Napoleon, Lafitte didn't really care about France. He was in private (Privateer) practice for himself.

Since then, the next time a British warship ever fired a weapon on American soil was when a British Submarine fired a Tomahawk Missile (American built) off the coast of Santa Barbara and hit a designated target in Nevada.

So, in the long run (a really long run spanning over 1 1/2 centuries) both the Americans and the British benifited the most with France coming up a poor third.

[Ironduke]

Out of that list, definetly Napoleon. Except for one thing. He didn't benefit politically. He benefited economically. He got the money to fund his self-destructive wars.

He definitely avoided a near-future war against the United States (which may have just decided to take New Orleans and Louisiana in a moment of weakness during the Napoleonic Wars). I would characterize his wars as being self-destructive in 1803, without the ill-thought out invasion of Russia, Napoleon's Empire could have very well continued on past 1814/15.

[Feanor]

Out of that list, definetly Napoleon. Except for one thing. He didn't benefit politically. He benefited economically. He got the money to fund his self-destructive wars.

[Ironduke]

I dont know the rest of the list well ... but I would say Napoleon had the most to gain, sense had it not happened (Louisiana Purchase) he (Napoleon) would have had the most to loose, considering that the French hold on those territory would have severally weaken by time and finally severed, but with no return value at that point.

It likely would have ended up much similar to the situation in Texas... American settlement along the Mississippi, start to declare themselves independent, and France can't afford to fight a war against the US. I can't imagine it would be hard to effectively siege/blockade New Orleans. Once that fell there really isn't anything left, it would be extremely hard for the French to retake the city.

I don't know if Thomas Jefferson benefited politically... like Alaska 44 years later (Seward's Icebox), the Louisiana Purchase was considered folly by many leading politicians at the time (named "The Great American Desert")... for the first half of the 18th century it was merely something for covered wagons to pass through on their way to California and Oregon.

I don't know how far $3 million in 1803 dollars would have gone... perhaps it would have given a significant boost to France's war effort, allow them to raise and equip armies for conquests. Maybe an examination of Napoleon's campaigns for the period up to a couple years after the sale would shed some light.

Burr didn't gain at all politically in this period -- he was dropped as the vice-presidential candidate on Jefferson's ticket, ran for the governorship of New York, lost, killed Hamilton, ran, returned and was acquitted, and so on.

[Amled]

Short term- Napoleon; he needed money; he was in no way capable of defending the territory in question.

Long term- US

Agree wholeheartedly, especially with the second part as the Purchase gave the US control of the Mississipi River, and thereby the West.

[Kansas Bear]

Short term- Napoleon; he needed money; he was in no way capable of defending the territory in question.

Long term- US