English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Napoleon later claimed that his decision to sell Louisiana had "given England a maritime rival that sooner or later will lay low her pride." Was he accurate in his prediction? What are some reasons?

2006-10-11 14:52:07 · 5 answers · asked by kp.eric 2 in Arts & Humanities History

5 answers

Not at all
Through the war of 1812, the US failed to take over the rest of British North America (now Canada); and the English failed to take back what was lost through the American Revolution. They both lost a lot of men and gained nothing, so declared an end of the war. Shortly after the end of the war, British troops, not hearing that news that the war had ended, were on the way to battle New Orleans, but regardless of the result, the war was already officially over, no one would gain or lose territory there.
The British were victorious defending what is now Canada, and Americans were victorious keeping their independent republic.
There was a peace treaty, Treaty of Ghent which set out an agreement of peaceful co-existense between USA and Britain, so regardless of the growth of the USA area and population through the Louisiana Purchase, the USA would not be an adversary to Britain, and Britain, through the rest of the 1800's with their great and proud navy, expanded their proud British Empire more solidly in India, China, Australia, Caribean, Afrika, etc.... Also, the vast majority of the "Louisana" territory was inland, the middle 40% of what is now USA, whatever few people were populating that land already were far from the sea shores or maritime or navy-culture and technology, as opposed to England which is surrounded by sea and almost everyone was close to maritime things, a greater percentage of the population from England would know boating technology and be able to make a great navy. Napoleon was wrong.
Pardon the "run-on sentence" grammar.

2006-10-11 15:07:33 · answer #1 · answered by million$gon 7 · 0 0

La. Purchase was Napoleon realizing he couldn't sustain a presence in the US without Haiti. Remember, Sugar is a huge commercial product and Haiti had a revolt, whereas the slaves revolted and took control. French took back La, from the Spanish and wanted to make money of a Mercantile system with this Fr/Spanish colony. Nap (during his second go at being the mini-dictator) tried to send a regiment of Fr. Soldiers back to Haiti to conquer many of who died mostly of disease. Realizing this , with Robert Livingston and Monroe waiting in the hallways (figuratively) to purchase NWO only, it came as a great surprise to these two gentlemen and Jefferson as well. Napoleon's wars were costly both militarily and financially. For a sum of 15 million dollars and help from the Dutch who funded our purchase, the La. Territory became US property.

2006-10-11 23:04:08 · answer #2 · answered by Adam 4 · 0 0

he never sold that land to undermine England. he had all intions of building a second french empire in the Americas. in fact after he was done in Europe he had planned on taking over Mexico and so on but he went broke and sold the land for dirt cheap to help fund his conquest of Russia.

2006-10-11 23:10:09 · answer #3 · answered by ryan s 5 · 0 0

Yes and no.

We never really laid low her pride, just superceded it.

After 1812, things got better between the US and the UK

2006-10-11 21:53:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You do realize that teachers talk about kids like you after school, don't you?

2006-10-11 21:54:28 · answer #5 · answered by Fun and Games 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers