AHC/WI: US joins the Napoleonic Wars on Britain's side

Meshakhad

Meshakhad

While at first glance it seems implausible, it seems to me that the US actually came remarkably close to fighting alongside Britain against France. Thomas Jefferson said that if France retained New Orleans, "we must marry ourselves to the British fleet & nation". I also recall that France seized US merchants trading with Britain. In fact, it seems to me that only pro-French sentiment in the US prevented a Franco-American War. So, could the US have been pushed into actually going to war with France? And what would be the consequences?

I can see two factors that might have tipped the scales. First would be John Adams winning the election of 1800. IIRC, he was more of an Anglophile than Jefferson. Perhaps Adams avoids a breach with Hamilton? A second factor would be a French refusal to sell New Orleans. I don't see it as implausible that Napoleon might refuse (or demand a price that the US couldn't pay). If that happened, surely someone would suggest taking New Orleans (and the Louisiana Territory) by force. The US couldn't face France alone, but if they allied with Britain, that would be a different story.

Obviously, the first thing that happens is that the US attacks New Orleans. I don't know how well defended it was, but eventually the Americans would win. Something like the Lewis and Clark expedition might happen, but with a more military bent, the aim being to secure the territory for America. The US might go after other French possessions in the New World. After or instead of this, the President (be it Adams or Jefferson) would probably send the US Navy across the Atlantic to fight alongside the British. This wouldn't have a major impact (the British already had a decisive naval advantage), but it would give the fledgling US navy some experience as well as letting them learn from the Royal Navy. Certainly the Royal Navy would come to appreciate the power of the American super-frigates. And if the US is allied with Britain, then there would probably not be any widespread impressment of American sailors. However, I honestly don't see the US sending much in the way of ground forces to Europe. Between all of this, we can safely say that the War of 1812 would be averted.

I can see a few long-term consequences. There's a minor possibility that the US takes one or more French colonies in the Caribbean. This might give the US a taste for colonial expansion. The US would also probably retain stronger ties to Britain, but probably not enough to have a major impact. The biggest change would be that without the defeats inflicted upon the US during the War of 1812, the US might retain the militia system for much longer, possibly leading to a defeat (or at least not a total victory) in the Mexican-American War.
 

alexmilman

Meshakhad said:
While at first glance it seems implausible, it seems to me that the US actually came remarkably close to fighting alongside Britain against France. Thomas Jefferson said that if France retained New Orleans, "we must marry ourselves to the British fleet & nation". I also recall that France seized US merchants trading with Britain. In fact, it seems to me that only pro-French sentiment in the US prevented a Franco-American War. So, could the US have been pushed into actually going to war with France? And what would be the consequences?

I can see two factors that might have tipped the scales. First would be John Adams winning the election of 1800. IIRC, he was more of an Anglophile than Jefferson. Perhaps Adams avoids a breach with Hamilton? A second factor would be a French refusal to sell New Orleans. I don't see it as implausible that Napoleon might refuse (or demand a price that the US couldn't pay). If that happened, surely someone would suggest taking New Orleans (and the Louisiana Territory) by force. The US couldn't face France alone, but if they allied with Britain, that would be a different story.

Obviously, the first thing that happens is that the US attacks New Orleans. I don't know how well defended it was, but eventually the Americans would win. Something like the Lewis and Clark expedition might happen, but with a more military bent, the aim being to secure the territory for America. The US might go after other French possessions in the New World. After or instead of this, the President (be it Adams or Jefferson) would probably send the US Navy across the Atlantic to fight alongside the British. This wouldn't have a major impact (the British already had a decisive naval advantage), but it would give the fledgling US navy some experience as well as letting them learn from the Royal Navy. Certainly the Royal Navy would come to appreciate the power of the American super-frigates. And if the US is allied with Britain, then there would probably not be any widespread impressment of American sailors. However, I honestly don't see the US sending much in the way of ground forces to Europe. Between all of this, we can safely say that the War of 1812 would be averted.

I can see a few long-term consequences. There's a minor possibility that the US takes one or more French colonies in the Caribbean. This might give the US a taste for colonial expansion. The US would also probably retain stronger ties to Britain, but probably not enough to have a major impact. The biggest change would be that without the defeats inflicted upon the US during the War of 1812, the US might retain the militia system for much longer, possibly leading to a defeat (or at least not a total victory) in the Mexican-American War.
Click to expand...


To start with, Napoleon pretty much needed to sell Louisiana because, after disaster in Haiti, he could not maintain it. So the premise is shaky, at best.

Then, “
As a neutral country the United States could claim unfettered trade with all countries, including Britain and France, and for the most part American ships were welcomed with open arms. American ships carried commodities from all over the world and distributed European manufactures in ports worldwide. Freight earnings boomed. In 1792, American shippers earned an estimated $7.2 million. By 1796 these earnings had tripled to $21.6 million and eventually peaked at $42.1 million in 1807…. As income from the trade boom diffused throughout the economy, the United States experienced dramatic export-led growth. Between 1792 and 1795, U.S. exports doubled; they doubled again in 1801, and by 1807 were five times what they had been fifteen years earlier. Moreover, the rate of growth in foreign trade far outstripped that of population. Per capita income from exports, shipping services, and ship sales averaged $6.77 in 1792. In 1807, the per capita figure was $22.76.”

Napoleonic Wars, Impact on the U.S. Economy (Issue) | Encyclopedia.com

NAPOLEONIC WARS, IMPACT ON THE U.S. ECONOMY (ISSUE) The French Revolution (1789–1793) was a watershed in European history. Source for information on Napoleonic Wars, Impact on the U.S. Economy (Issue): Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History dictionary.
www.encyclopedia.com www.encyclopedia.com


In other words, siding with Britain would not make economic sense leaving “conquest for the sake of conquest” as the only justification.

As far as seizing the American ships was involved, this belongs to the later period and both Britain and France had been practicing it. Nappy, at least was making excuses and exceptions and was not forcing the American sailors into the naval service. “In 1805, a British court ruled that goods from the French West Indies bound for Europe on American vessels, even though shipped by way of the United States, were subject to seizure. When the commercial provisions of Jay's Treaty of 1794 expired in 1807 and American diplomats were unable to negotiate a new agreement to President Jefferson's satisfaction, British interference with American shipping increased. Meanwhile, Napoleon challenged British policy with the Berlin Decree of 1806 and Milan Decree of 1807, which closed European ports under his control to British goods and declared that neutral ships complying with British trade regulations would be confiscated. The United States was caught in the middle.”
 
Last edited:

unprincipled peter

Donor
USA at the time was no military juggernaut capable of taking whatever they want, whenever they want. Prior to War of 1812, they operated under the militia system, which was ineffective at power projection. New Orleans was quite remote from the power center of USA, with a long supply line. East Coast folk are going to quit pretty quickly facing the heat and tropical disease. The Quasi War (the prime time for a dust up with France) was prior to Trafalgar, so Britain isn't sole commander of the sea. Britain holds the edge, but reinforcement isn't impossible. Don't be so sure that France/Spain can't hold on to their territories. USA can defend, but they can't go on a conquering spree, nor can they afford it. The sabre rattling about taking NO by force was all bluster, with no teeth behind it.

USA is NOT going to join the Nap Wars. They might fight France and/or Spain in a separate war, and they'll try to get Britain to join them in doing so. Britain will maintain benevolent neutrality, and except for the time during Peace of Amiens, will engage F/S at sea. Sans an alliance bringing USA to European theater, which isn't happening, Britain isn't joining a one sided alliance siphoning off British resources for no gain to Britain.
 

Wyrd

A conflict between Britain and America in this period is quite hard to avoid. The main issue is the American employment of British sailors. American merchants expanded their fleets to take over the trade between the various European colonies whose homelands were occupied by the French. In order to do this, the Americans had to employ British seamen which drained Britain of sailors when she was fighting for her survival. This is the reason why the British were hunting for men on American ships - they were looking for Brits not Americans (although 10% of those impressed were Americans). If the Americans surrendered all of the British sailors, then they would lose half of the skilled sailors serving on American merchant ships. The American government had considered this option, but discarded it after considering the economic consequences. Britain and America would need to come to an agreement over this issue in some way which pleases both countries and stops the humiliation both sides felt over the problem and one of the causes of the war.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Saint-Domingue is too big a nut for the Americans to crack alone. It was too much for the British or French for that matter. American traders were already profiteering off of French distress as it was.

The smaller islands like Guadalupe, Martinique, Dominica, Tobago, some of the Grenadines, might be theoretically digestible, but anything the British capture, the British would keep for themselves and not give to the Americans. Even on these islands, tropical diseases have a way of ripping through besieging forces.

There could be regional splits over whether acquiring such territories is desirable. Commerce heavy New England and New York City might like the idea. Anti-slavery Pennsylvania may dislike the idea. Virginia and North Carolina may be hesitant to acquire any islands that have competing tobacco lands. However, sugar was not grown in any state at the time so sugar plantation acquisition shouldn't be considered a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top