Joubert 1799 and Carnot's Amiens 1801 (*TL)

Joubert wins at Novi
First ever defeat for Suvorov

Secures French presence in Italy

Front also secured

No decision to recall Bonaparte
but he recalls himself, worried about rivals

But Joubert balances Bonaparte
and whilst Sieyes' coup goes ahead
it is with a balance between the 2 military leaders
Joubert is Sieyes' main man
Bonaparte is his own man but won't be side-lined

Bonaparte's star falls when he has to flee the assembly
Joubert emerges the brighter

Sieyes and Joubert rule with Ducot in the Consulate

Bonaparte marginalised politically

War going bad in Germany
Bonaparte wants the command
but Moreau gets it

Bonaparte rises up
but is defeated
but popular uprising overthrows the Consulate
puts Lucien as its last president in charge

He is a man of democratic ideal
Admires the USA
Works for a more truly democratic France
with an elected president

Offers peace to England
is rebuffed
Plans come to fruition
Moreau hero in Germany

Lucien is assassinated
Moreau vows to complete his work
Massena defends the republic on the S frontier

New constitution copy of the US one is unveiled
"A nation that has proved its stability"

Presidential election
Carnot is elected as a compromise candidate

Able to show his nation at peace
The frontiers secure in N and S
France again approaches England with peace offer
This time, Addington's government agrees

1801
Treaty of Amiens
(seems to have been the logical place to remove the negotiations to out of Paris)

- - -

There has been neither
-1- Spanish invasion of Portugal
-2- Treaty of San Ildefonso

On the other hand
-1- French armies in Egypt precede as per historical
-2- Anglo-French negotiations have much the same things to discuss

Unlike Napoleon, Carnot intends to keep his word
- thus the frontier republics are, from his perspective, intended to be independent and secure
= Cisalpine
= Ligurian
= Helvetic
= Batavian

Carnot would probably also agree a compromise on Tobago as pressed for by the British

He would also not reintroduce slavery into Haiti, hence Toussant L'Ouverture's rebellion does not occur, and hence again France does not need to send a large army and navy to the West Indies

Louisiana, of course, remains staunchly Spanish
- - -

So, what does the world hold for 1802+ ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf


Joubert 1799 and Carnot's Amiens 1801

Thanks to fhaessig for being the only person to engage with one of the two threads I posted as preliminaries for this. I changed the premise a bit, but decided to see how it would run

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Looking beyond 1801

No San Ildefonso
(so no Louisiana retrocession to France, and no sale to the USA)
but
American settlers continue to cross the Mississippi
Spanish Governors must fnid a compromise
One imagines some mini-Texas solutions

But interspersed with Spanish garrisons
Spanish towns growing into cities

With Tejas, Mexico etc all remaining staunchly Spanish

- - -

What the fluff has happened in Europe since 1801 here ?

Does the presidential system and the Treaty of Amiens mean peace
or does it just mean a hiatus
perhaps a lasting Anglo-French peace
but sooner or later renewed hostilities from Austria, other monarchies in C Europe

And of American presidents ?

After Jefferson...but does he even win re-election ?

- - -

1799 won't be altered
so the election in 1800 seems unlikely to be altered in outcome

But what does Jefferson achieve 1800-1804 ?
Louisiana remains Spanish
as does Florida (of course) but this means no US South coast

Sure, he can send an expedition West
and he had planned to since the 1780s
but its exploring SPANISH territory
can have US patronage but hardly funding
or active US military personnel
has to be a scientific expedition
led by scientists and private funding
and presumably a Spanish contingent

I guess he has the Tripolitanian War as a major defining event in foreign policy

Of course, a lot depends on how Europe plays out

- - -

Would the settling down of French under a leader who intends to keep his word, have ramifications in Britain ?

Addington may well go down as a hero
And if Carnot opens Europe up for British trade
the peace will be seen as successful

How will this bend British politics ?
Will Fox and co end up looking at a US republican model ?
as in Paris
but isn't that treason ?

- - -

Are the barrier republics stable ?
- Batavian
Had its colonies restored at Amiens (apart from Ceylon but including the Cape and Demerara)
- Cisalpine
Close to France, could rely on it for defence
- Ligurian
- Helvetian

What happens within Europe if the French beat back any attempt to renew the war ?
Peace by 1804 ?
And then ?

How stable are the monarchies if Britain sits neutral and peaceful
and France victorious and mending its many internal wounds ?

What tumults and spasms are still to come ?

- - -

Did Tsar Paul live
with no Bonaparte to be a catalyst ?

Or would Moreau, Massena, Carnot in turn all provide enough shocks
for his murderers to feel justified anyway

especially since Suvorov lost at Novi in 1799 as the POD ?

- - -

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Question of the state of Spanish rule in Tejas
Spanish missions and colonies

British into Oregon
and hold onto N Dakota

Russians in Alaska
down the coast

Spain's hold in California is also more secure

Britain's probing at it is the main threat
Treaties to delimit the border progressively via joint sphere of interest
towards two definite colonial zones

Spanish Florida remains too

USA has problems with the 5 Civilised Tribes
(or perhaps 4 if we remember the Seminole are in Spanish-owned Florida)

BUT
there has been no War of 1812

= = >
So, the Shawnee question will have been solved differently

= = >
Jackson's wars against the Seminole and Creek not happened this way

= = >
Florida remained whole and unviolated

Without 1812
Jackson is not SUCH a large figure
He won't end up as president
A different outcome to the 5(4) Tribes problem will occur

Without the Louisiana Purchase
there will be different state establishments
and maybe an Indian Area created in the Shawnee territory

which is of course ALREADY Indiana Territory in 1800

I don't KNOW what will happen,,,
Mississippi and Alabama were made states in 1817 and 1819
Florida/Seminole of course remains Spanish
Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and to a degree Cherokee lands lie in those states

BUT
in the NW
- Indiana 1816
- Illinois 1818
- Michigan 1837
- Wisconsin 1848
- Minnesota (of which only the NE 1/3 is US in this ATL) 1858

REMOVING the civilised tribes seems unnecessary
It would also seem far more dangerous in this TL
- they are in a smaller USA
- they are thus a larger % of it
- they'd be going North thru setled states
- they'd be going to land where other DANGEROUS Indians exist

Possibly something would happen to the Cherokee due to Georgia's power
BUT do they have equivalent power in this TL ?
When did Georgia even finally establish its borders ?

In the NW, one could see the final 3 states remain as Territory

- - -

I could imagine Anglo-Spanish clashes in N Louisiana
- Montana
- N Dakota (Western half)

maybe along the central Missouri leg in Montana
dog-leg down to non-Missourian Idaho
and West to the Columbia River

Thus Spain gets a treaty which is like OTL Pinckney for Florida
which allowed US encroachment to the S
but maintained the rest

Here, Spain holds onto OTL Oregon state, S OTL Idaho state, S half of Montana, SW N Dakota

- - -

The USA has probably seen various problems

- probably something akin to Burr/Louisiana conspiracy
- N-S tensions
- trade on the Mississippi and tensions with Spain over this
- tensions with Spain over colonists in Louisiana
on top of its Indian troubles


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well, I admit its not the easiest on the eye, but was an attempt at a brainstorm of the issues as I tried to get my head around them

Reading of the OTL period of Amiens peace, it seems as if Britain and France alike were happy the war was over, and if the ambitions of Napoleon had not run away would have got back to some kind of normality. He was seen as the ender of the Terror and the stabiliser of things. I would think the same could be argued for someone who goes down the US route, and I guess Carnot and Jefferson's administrations would get on quite well ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Interesting ideas Grey Wolf!

As there would be no War of the Oranges between Portugal and Spain in 1801, then Olivenza remains Portuguese, and the Missiones Orientales in South America remain Spanish. Also, without both the British invasion of Buenos Aires and the Peninsular War the independence of the Spanish colonies would have a complete different path, probably they would remain as colonies much longer, as Brazil, without the king of Portugal living in Rio.
The Spanish would still be allied to France, or without Napoleon they would remain as enemies?

Interesting premise. Sorry to have posted earlier, hadn't seen the threads.

A few questions / thoughts:

1) How does a US style constitution work in France? What are the states? Are all the provinces considered states? That's a lot of self-rule for them. And then of course, very many countries that have adopted US style constitutions have not found that they fostered stability where stability was not already present: see, Mexico and the Constitution of 1824. Also, are the frontier republics integrated into the Republic in this way?

2) Hmm, Spain should be relatively interesting without the Napoleonic invasion. You'd still have something of a home-grown autonomist movement, a la Francisco Miranda. However, without the juntas put in place after the invasion, they're not likely to have enough support. You have Carlos IV on the thrown without much interest in ruling, so long as radicalism does not take root in spain, and Godoy cavorting about seeming to run the country. The liberal reformers might still favor Ferdinand VII, but Carlos IV has little reason to abdicate and will live for quite some time. However, you'll have some pretty liberal army officer running about, like Jose de San Martin. While the Napoleonic invasion was a major starting point, I'm of the opinion that the Spanish Empire by 1800 was rife with internal contradictions that would have led toward somekind of reckoning. There are a lot of possibilities here. For one, it took quite a long time for all the Spanish Americans to decide to seek independence, particular in New Spain / Mexico and Peru.

3) Louisiana. Obviously, I agree there's no Purchase; there can't be without Napoleon. However, acquiring control of New Orleans was hugely important. In 1804, Jefferson was prepared to attempt to seize the port outright. In 1795, Pickney's treaty had guaranteed Americans the right to navigate the river and to deposit goods at New Orleans. The Spanish had revoked this right in 1796, only to restore in 1800. Surely, the inevitable border incidents will lead to Spain trying to exercise the same leverage. Jefferson frequently showed that he was more than willing to use force in such a scenario. Of course, if Spain isn't tied into a larger war, such a conflict will be very hard for the US to win.

Confluence of 2 & 3) So we have potential for liberal movements at home and autonomist/indepentist movements abroad in the Spanish Empire and a strong likelihood of conflict with the USA. The US will probably offer some kind of limited purchase, which the Spanish would be smart to accept, but probably won't. If the US and Spain come to logger heads, the balance of power falls to Great Britain. On the one had, Britain has no desire to enhance the power of the United States and has uneasy relations with its recalictrant cousin through the 1790s. However, there's no Continental System / Orders in Council to test the Anglo-American relationship, though there might have been an outbreak of Franco-American friendship after Carnot's rise to power and the new Constitution. And there's the long-held British to desire to cleave off bits of the Spanish Empire. Spain and Republican France are unlikely to combine against Britain, since Republican France will probably be anathema to Carlos IV's Spain (or at least its ruling influences). Does Britain trust Carnot's peace enough to participate in the war? I would imagine that distracting the British lion would be a boon to the French Republic, allowing it some breathing room.

4) What does the French Republic do with Haiti? Is Carnot content to leave L'Overture as Governor of the colony (or for that matter is L'Overture Governor yet)? This will determine a lot. While Jefferson is probably very disposed to be very friendly towards Carnot's regime, the issue of slavery will do odd things to him. Southern planteres cared a lot about how Haiti was dealt with and weren't unsupportive of Napoleon's plan to reconquer the island.

5) US - Indian relations: While the OTL result may be different, there will still be a conflict with the Shawnee in the offing (they had been fighting for some years). Tecumseh's pan-Indian movement will still pose a potent threat. Perhaps it grows more so by cooperation with the Civilized Tribes, facilitated by diplomatic intrigue with the Spanish in New Orleans. Such a struggle might well increase domestic support in the US for a stronger, more professinal army as well as a national Bank and infrastructure.

6) I'm not sure that Jackson doesn't rise to power. All he needs is a good war. At the least, he's likely to get an Indian campaign of some sort: something like the Creek War may still break out (since it was initially an internal conflict among the Creeks) and Jackson will be in the right place at the right time to win a victory. More than winning a battle, Jackson has the right kind of personality to be influential in some way in US National politics. However, this probably stunts his influence in the face of more wiley operators, like Henry Clay.

7) Without rising Anglo-American tensions, the biggest political butterfly is IMO the lack of the War Hawks. This was a group of jingoistic congressman elected in 1810: they include Henry Clay, John Calhoun, Richard Mentor Johnson, and others. Change Clay's election to the Speakership and you change the entire history of the committee system in the US Congress and thus the nature of the US Gov't. And Clay is very unlikely to be elected Speaker in 1811 without the War Hawks (though he may still seek and win a seat in the House of Reps).

8) Napoleon himself. You've had Napoleon marginalized and defeated politically, but what does he do next? Settle into the background as the product of extreme circumstances? Or does he connive ways to regain glory and thus power? I'd imagine Carnot's regime is not supremely stable.

9) War and Peace in Europe. I'd imagine the biggest question is what happens to alt-Amiens. You've said that Carnot intends to keep the peace with the British: will he stomach their defaulting on some agreed-to obligations in order to keep the peace? In the short-term I think this is the key. Also, is Austria still held to something like the Treaty of Luneville and thus the Treaty of Campo Formio, and hence is no longer the HRE? That might well distract them for a while. Certainly the question of a further war revolves around Carnot's actions and those of his Republic: if he eschews provocative action, then peace be default may prevail in Europe. Hence, my money is on events in Spain (or perhaps Austria/Germany) to provide a trigger.

Louisiana, of course, remains staunchly Spanish

Click to expand...

No San Ildefonso
(so no Louisiana retrocession to France, and no sale to the USA)
but
American settlers continue to cross the Mississippi
Spanish Governors must fnid a compromise
One imagines some mini-Texas solutions

But interspersed with Spanish garrisons
Spanish towns growing into cities

With Tejas, Mexico etc all remaining staunchly Spanish

Click to expand...

In 1803 Spain closed New Orleans to Americans after some trouble with the KeelBoat Men.
This is what the American Delegation was sent to Europe to solve.
However some in America were not willing to wait, and the news about the sale of Louisiana reached Mississippi, just weeks before the Mississippi Militia was ready to attack.
If Spain refused to sale, then Whe have the Spanish-American War of 1803.

He would also not reintroduce slavery into Haiti, hence Toussant L'Ouverture's rebellion does not occur, and hence again France does not need to send a large army and navy to the West Indies

Click to expand...

Spain Sold Santo Dominga to France in 1795, Without L'ouvertures rebellion the entire Island of Hispaniola remains French.

Spanish Florida remains too

Click to expand...

Depends on the outcome of the 1803 War.
Like New Orleans there are less than 5000 soldiers in the entire territory.and only a few more Settlers.
Taking New Orleans and Florida is a lot different than Canada in 1812
Now Holding them againt Spain will be something Else

USA has problems with the 5 Civilised Tribes
(or perhaps 4 if we remember the Seminole are in Spanish-owned Florida)

BUT
there has been no War of 1812

= = >
So, the Shawnee question will have been solved differently

= = >
Jackson's wars against the Seminole and Creek not happened this way

Click to expand...

I Believe that the Greek Wars were independent of the War of 1812,

though there might have been an outbreak of Franco-American friendship after Carnot's rise to power and the new Constitution.

Click to expand...

Except this is only a couple of years after the Quasi War of 1798.

?What happens with Genoa, and Tuscany ITTL?

...Et Joubert sur l'Adige, ET Moreau sur le Rhin..?

Thanks for the note, but I'm not sure my contribution was worth it.

Anyway, I have a few questions/comments :

+ Concerning *treaty or Amiens : If France follows her part of the treaty ( and I think she will, as Carnot isn't as emotionally attached to General Bonapartes conquests as Napoleon was ), will Uk follow hers and give back Malta? ( In OTL, each side was accusing the other of breaking the treaty first and using that as a pretext not to follow their part ).

+ Concerning the coup, you seem to have completely sidelined Barras.

+ Concerning Bonapartes : I don't think it would be that easy to sideline him during the coup, as he would try to go for more, and as Lucien was still trying to look out for La Famiglia, in OTL. Maybe there should be something explaining why. Maybe Napoleon contacts a disease in Egypt and has a fever access during the critical days. Then, the window of opportunity has closed. Maybe Napoleon gets to Ottoman service in later years and end up campaining in Russia?

+ Concerning Haiti, while it's sure the french republic will never reinstate slavery ( with Barras and Napoleon sidelined, Tascher de la Pagerie's clique is far from power ), IIRC, by 1800-1801, Toussaint had taken steps to create an independent state, with himself as governor for life, and it was a dictatorship. So, while the french likely won't send troops, everything may not be rosy in the sister republic.

+ Concerning the constitution, I doubt France will copy the US one outright. However, it may be used as inspiration. If necessary, the equivalent of states could be the old 'pays d'etats' ( ie lands depending from provincial parliaments ) - with new ones created to cover the rest of the country - or, more likely IMO, the 'new' departements ( created before the PoD, though not yet ruled by prefects ). BTW, Belgium + Maastricht are obviously part of France ITTL, while Northern Italy is obvioulsy not, but what about the West bank of the Rhine. In oTL, it was formally annexed in 18014, IIRC.

Concerning wars, I think, even if Uk is not subsidising the coalitions ( definitely not if there is open trade and/or Talleyrand has some say in foreign relation - extremely likely -) there will be one or two more coalitions, likely a bit delayed from OTL. Which will definitely be crushed.

Concerning France internal wars : Vendee is militarly crushed by time of PoD, but there haas been no concordat, so still a lot of resentment and low level guerilla/banditry. How will Carnot deal with this?

I have to finish now. I'll post a few more point next week if still relevent.

Thanks for the comments and suggestions; I'm still very much in the formative stage here, so am quite happy to step back and alter things if I've done anything impossible !

I read a lot about the pseudo-federalists of 1793, before their defeat and execution by Robespierre, Marat etc, and it seemed there's a possibility for something there

But in a sense, you can have an electoral college based on the provinces without giving the provinces self-government. That would provide for a meeting of electors to choose the president, whilst keeping power more centralised than in the USA

I'm going to post what I wrote last night before answering a couple more ideas as they come up

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Gonzaga said:

Interesting ideas Grey Wolf!

As there would be no War of the Oranges between Portugal and Spain in 1801, then Olivenza remains Portuguese, and the Missiones Orientales in South America remain Spanish. Also, without both the British invasion of Buenos Aires and the Peninsular War the independence of the Spanish colonies would have a complete different path, probably they would remain as colonies much longer, as Brazil, without the king of Portugal living in Rio.
The Spanish would still be allied to France, or without Napoleon they would remain as enemies?

Click to expand...

Well, I know that Spain was at war with Britain in 1797, and don't know whether peace was made at all before Godoy conspired with Napoleon to invade Portugal. Have to remember that I don't have internet sources at home, so I research and save webpages when I'm out during the day, where I can, and try to read deeper in them at home in the evening. Else, I rely on what books I can find of mine to help

Without the 1801 explosion of war, I guess it would be as you said - no Portuguese loss of a frontier city, no Spanish loss of a province in Southern America. The latter would probably have greater knock-on effects than the former, but remain sometime in the future as of that moment in time

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I've been trying to work out the Cherokee, though its a bit like assembling a tower of bricks, then taking some away and hoping to re-establish the tower with the rest without it falling down in the meantime.

There is a 1798 treaty guaranteeing the Cherokee their lands (again, after encorachments after the previous 'guarantee' treaty)

Then there was a note in 1800 of some Cherokee bands crossing West of the Mississippi into what one supposes was Spanish-becoming-French Louisiana

Treaties of Tellico signed in 1804-06 seem to do some more guaranteeing, together with sending farming implements to the Cherokee to encourage them to become farmers

War of 1812, some Cherokee fought for the US and some for the British

After the war, in 1815 (it ended early in that year) a Cherokee reservation was established for some in Arkansas, with others living in other lands E of the Mississippi

During the 1820s, the Cherokee (main grouping I guess, mainly in Georgia) adopted Western ways - they established a Cherokee Supreme Court in 1820 with clans abandoning judicial responsibilities; 1825 citizenship laws; 1827 the adoption of a Cherokee constitution

By 1830, white settlement was forcing the Cherokee from their ancestral lands in Georgia and the Carolinas.

Indian Removal Act of 1830

Then of course things didn't go so well for them...

- - -

If we see these as bricks of their history, then we remove from the tower of bricks

- the removal of the Louisiana Purchase
This might affect how the 1804-06 agreements are made
or it might not

- no War of 1812
Obviously, the Cherokee don't fight on either side

- No Arkansas
So, no Cherokee territory could be enacted there even for one band
UNLESS the Spanish want them ?
We saw in 1800 that some went West of their own volition
So maybe, Spain offers land for those who want to come
But why would they ?

- Andrew Jackson
Really depends on how we decide US history is playing out, but he seems less likely to rise to his OTL prominence and thus far less likely to take the presidency

He could be seen as both a symptom and a cause, thus his 'Age' may be completely different, with the very different tensions of the time - thus a completely different settlement to the Cherokee question may well be on the cards

For one thing, the US Supreme Court was inclined to look upon the Cherokee as a sovereign nation with their rights guaranteed by the US federal government. OTL their unwillingness to go against the president made them fudge their judgment, and let Georgia get their way.

But if we look to this principal on the wider question of the Indian Nations, unless the US is willing to go to war with Spain (and in the first 20 years at least of the 19th century this is going to be a major undertaking as Spain has not been weakened by the Napoleonic Wars and remains strong in the Americas) then it will have to come to an accommodation with those already within its borders, especially with those who are not warlike and are living at peace within their territory

I still haven't found when Georgia's OTL borders were finalised, but even if it was pre-POD or so close as to make no difference, the territory to the West appears on maps as 2 territories in 1804 - Terrritory South of the Ohio River and Mississippi Territory. By 1804 these had been merged to create the Mississippi Territory but what role in that decision did the Louisiana Purchase have, and without it would it have remained split ?

By 1816 it is STILL a territory, but in the next couple of years Alabama and Mississippi come into being, together with the acquisition of the West Florida coastline.

Now, in the ATL there seems room for manoevre here. BUT the question in a sense is irrelevant - IF the US will meaningfully guarantee the lands of a sovereign Indian Nation and uphold this guarantee in the courts, then whatever states are built around those lands are irrelevant. Its like with the reservations today, its irrelevent what states they are in because their relations are with the federal government, and pre-1870s those relations were on the basis of treating them as a sovereign nation that one drew up binding treaties with

So, I'm still stuck because the white man is rapacious, none more so than the inhabitants of Georgia in this period. But if prior to the 1830s the Four Civilised Tribes have settled, secured their lands etc, then might not the states simply grow up around them, leaving them be ? It was Jacksonian dogma which saw them as immoral people, their native customs polluted by the Europeans, their existence in turn polluting them back. With a different 3 decades, a different Age grows up with a more intelligent way of looking at things

After all, compared to warlike Indian nations, the Four are going to look positively NICE. And with whatever outcome we posit for the Shawnee, and later the Eastern Sioux, its going to involve war and battle and conquest. So there could be one solution for the civilised guys down in the South, and a different one for the warlike 'savages' in the North ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Quick Question

What about Fulton?

By the time of the PoD, he's in France - and stays there for a few years OTL -.

And with Carnot president, I imagine he will get the official support he failed to get OTL.

SO he's likely to stay in France. Which is going to have quite some effects.

fhaessig said:

What about Fulton?

By the time of the PoD, he's in France - and stays there for a few years OTL -.

And with Carnot president, I imagine he will get the official support he failed to get OTL.

SO he's likely to stay in France. Which is going to have quite some effects.

Click to expand...

Steam boats on the Seine ?

Much more later, gotta run now !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf said:

Steam boats on the Seine ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

Demonstrated in 1803, IIRC, OTL, by Fulton in front three academicians.... among which Carnot.

Of course, Jouffroy had made a prior demonstration in late 1770s and early1780s, and it didn't get anywhere ( academy didn't believe it ). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_de_Jouffroy

Maybe Carnot can get Fulton and Jouffroy in contact ( though the later may have to be convinced to come back to France as he chose exile during the revolution ). The cooperation could prove fruitful.

GW,

You're right the 4 Civilized Tribes were substantially different from other sorts of Indians. However, IIRC, they didn't have the population density to hold the lands they claimed in the face of white encroachment. On the other hand, Washington and Knox were originally very committed to trying to create viable reservation-statelets for them as a matter of republican principle and honor.

However, not all parts of the Civilized Tribes went along with being civilized: the Creek War was very much a civil war between a branch of the Creeks that wanted to adopt more sedentary, white ways and a branch (the Red Sticks) that didn't.

Also, as to the Supreme Court decisions in the '30s, the SC (i.e. John Marshall) never backed down on ruling the Cherokee to be sovereign, Jackson simply refused to enforce the ruling...at all. So, if you don't have Jackson, then Marshall could well force the issue. Indeed, one wonders if you could get the Indian reservations to be considered full-on states and adopt the Constitution et al. I think this will be the ultimate source of conflict: there's way too much of a race divide and racisim. The Cherokee Constitution, for example, limited the rights of non-Cherokee in Cherokee lands. The US Constitution (without some judicious rulings a la Dred Scott) wouldn't tolerate that, if the Indians were to gain their own states. On the flip side though, that could make for an interesting dynamic: the Cherokee et al are admitted at the price of enforcing a very states-right construction of the Constitution which also favors Southern slave owners. Since of course the agriculture that many of the tribes were adopting was slave, plantation agriculture.

As to Spain, while it hasn't been weakened by the Napoleonic Wars, the history of Spain in the 18th century and early 19th is not a picture of strength. The Bourbon reforms in mid-18th century had begun to reassert the position of peninsulares over creoles in the vice-royalties. This laid the groundwork for the later independence movements in the same way salutary neglect and the Seven Years' War did for the USA. In 1820-2, when the restored liberal Cortes tried to work out a compromise solution to the indepence movements, members from the Americas presented several compromise solutions that would give the vice-royalities mild forms of autonomy and more representation in the Cortes, but it was the Spanish who insisted otherwise. This dynamic will still exist and per OTL is a pretty sure recipe for breakaway movements. The flipside is of course that the Spanish American colonies should stay fairly loyal until they're given some kind of provocation to break away. Nonetheless, I would argue the system and the Empire has a fundamental weakness, waiting to be exposed.

With this imperial weakness, one must also consider the weakness stemming from the government of Spain herself. Carlos IV was essentially an absentee landlord in respect of the governance of his kingdom. OTL before the Napoleonic invasion, there strong schisms in the Spanish nobility that wanted him to abdicate in favor of Ferdidnand (because liberal Spaniards hoped that Ferdidnand would do more to reform). Such schisms are bound to increase becasue with Republican France solidifying north of the Pyranees, the regime in Madrid will only become more skittish about reform.

In respect of her empire and her domestic constitution, Spain cannot withstand the test of a solid opponent. Of course, the USA in 1803 is not in a position to provide that oppoisition, but by the 1820s it may well be. And it will be very hungry for a way to acquire more land because in lieu of having extensive territory into which to expand, the established states will become harder to govern and domestic strife is likely to increase. The Spanish Empire can still reform, but that task will be a daunting undertaking. And then of course there's the question of whether Britain allows Spain the breathing room necessary to turn its Empire into a unit that could one day meaningfully compete for worldwide dominance of trade and markets.

Oh, the glories of a newly-researched topic.

On a different bent, the USA without its western frontier will be a very interesting place. For one, it will still be very powerful once it industrializes and it may industrialize sooner. The conflict over slavery is less likely to become the kind of divisive issue it did if no large tracts of land are added to the country, resulting in a competition between free labor and slave labor ideologies. The NW Ordinance will have set things in motion and no further settlement would be needed.

And then of course the American psyche / national experince will be very different if America never really pursues expansionism (or is never successfull in doing so).

I wonder what the effects of a lasting Peace of Amiens will be on Britain though. Will Fox try to implement more radical reforms? Will they succeed or fan the flames of social conflict? Without the war as a crucible, will British industry get the same jump start in inudstry? What will Horatio Nelson do?

?What effect will all this have on Denmark/Norway & Sweden/Finland.?
No House Berodette for the Swedish Throne.

?What happens to the Netherland Border ITTL?, No King Louis Bonaparte.

Pre War of 1812 there was a lot of American Movement into Canada/Ontario. No war and this continues. ?Results?

Nicomacheus said:

Interesting premise. Sorry to have posted earlier, hadn't seen the threads.

Click to expand...

I am very pleased and happy to have you here; I was thinking your knowledge and expertise would be valuable and was wondering about PM'ing you

A few questions / thoughts:

1) How does a US style constitution work in France? What are the states? Are all the provinces considered states? That's a lot of self-rule for them. And then of course, very many countries that have adopted US style constitutions have not found that they fostered stability where stability was not already present: see, Mexico and the Constitution of 1824. Also, are the frontier republics integrated into the Republic in this way?

Click to expand...

I was thinking of a scenario where the provinces etc were used for the electoral college but didn't get self-rule. IIRC some of the US states even in 1796/1800 apportioned electoral college votes according to popular vote, rather than state legislature vote, and its this model I was looking at

The frontier republics would be de jure independent, however much that comes to rely upon France

2) Hmm, Spain should be relatively interesting without the Napoleonic invasion. You'd still have something of a home-grown autonomist movement, a la Francisco Miranda. However, without the juntas put in place after the invasion, they're not likely to have enough support. You have Carlos IV on the thrown without much interest in ruling, so long as radicalism does not take root in spain, and Godoy cavorting about seeming to run the country. The liberal reformers might still favor Ferdinand VII, but Carlos IV has little reason to abdicate and will live for quite some time. However, you'll have some pretty liberal army officer running about, like Jose de San Martin. While the Napoleonic invasion was a major starting point, I'm of the opinion that the Spanish Empire by 1800 was rife with internal contradictions that would have led toward somekind of reckoning. There are a lot of possibilities here. For one, it took quite a long time for all the Spanish Americans to decide to seek independence, particular in New Spain / Mexico and Peru.

3) Louisiana. Obviously, I agree there's no Purchase; there can't be without Napoleon. However, acquiring control of New Orleans was hugely important. In 1804, Jefferson was prepared to attempt to seize the port outright. In 1795, Pickney's treaty had guaranteed Americans the right to navigate the river and to deposit goods at New Orleans. The Spanish had revoked this right in 1796, only to restore in 1800. Surely, the inevitable border incidents will lead to Spain trying to exercise the same leverage. Jefferson frequently showed that he was more than willing to use force in such a scenario. Of course, if Spain isn't tied into a larger war, such a conflict will be very hard for the US to win.

Confluence of 2 & 3) So we have potential for liberal movements at home and autonomist/indepentist movements abroad in the Spanish Empire and a strong likelihood of conflict with the USA. The US will probably offer some kind of limited purchase, which the Spanish would be smart to accept, but probably won't. If the US and Spain come to logger heads, the balance of power falls to Great Britain. On the one had, Britain has no desire to enhance the power of the United States and has uneasy relations with its recalictrant cousin through the 1790s. However, there's no Continental System / Orders in Council to test the Anglo-American relationship, though there might have been an outbreak of Franco-American friendship after Carnot's rise to power and the new Constitution. And there's the long-held British to desire to cleave off bits of the Spanish Empire. Spain and Republican France are unlikely to combine against Britain, since Republican France will probably be anathema to Carlos IV's Spain (or at least its ruling influences). Does Britain trust Carnot's peace enough to participate in the war? I would imagine that distracting the British lion would be a boon to the French Republic, allowing it some breathing room.

Click to expand...

I am always impressed by historians who know all the things nibbling at my memory ! I seem to learn things, assimilate the IDEA of them, but forget the details and then a few years later revisit them and wonder why I can't compete.

As DuQuesne suggests a US-Spanish war might be already on the cards, but if it DOES break out it will be a limited one, with limited objectives - presumably New Orleans and West Florida. It ought also to be a hard-fought one if it does occur. Spain is not distracted elsewhere and would have a battlefleet available and thus presumably also an expeditionary army. Would the USA really DARE to take all this on, and if it does can it win ?

A DEFEAT to Spain in c 1804 would be a massive blow to the young USA and would send its internal politics off on an entirely new direction. Even if it wins by default, I would assume it to be a hard and costly war, and many especially in the N would ask if the prize was worth the cost

4) What does the French Republic do with Haiti? Is Carnot content to leave L'Overture as Governor of the colony (or for that matter is L'Overture Governor yet)? This will determine a lot. While Jefferson is probably very disposed to be very friendly towards Carnot's regime, the issue of slavery will do odd things to him. Southern planteres cared a lot about how Haiti was dealt with and weren't unsupportive of Napoleon's plan to reconquer the island.

Click to expand...

My reading is that L'Ouverture is governor for Paris, and whilst this is basically autonomy verging on independence no one wants the latter. Carnot may do to him as Istanbul did to Ali Pasha of Janina, ie let him get on with it, and intervene only when he dies, or his rule falls apart.

5) US - Indian relations: While the OTL result may be different, there will still be a conflict with the Shawnee in the offing (they had been fighting for some years). Tecumseh's pan-Indian movement will still pose a potent threat. Perhaps it grows more so by cooperation with the Civilized Tribes, facilitated by diplomatic intrigue with the Spanish in New Orleans. Such a struggle might well increase domestic support in the US for a stronger, more professinal army as well as a national Bank and infrastructure.

Click to expand...

I'm certain that there's a conflict with the Shawnee in the offing, and as DuQuesne points out the initial Creek Wars arose from internal problems and not outside considerations. However, I am certain that US considerations on both included a subconscious factor based on the Louisiana Purchase - ie this latter affected the strategic reality and thus how things elsewhere were viewed. Just not sure how this would play out

6) I'm not sure that Jackson doesn't rise to power. All he needs is a good war. At the least, he's likely to get an Indian campaign of some sort: something like the Creek War may still break out (since it was initially an internal conflict among the Creeks) and Jackson will be in the right place at the right time to win a victory. More than winning a battle, Jackson has the right kind of personality to be influential in some way in US National politics. However, this probably stunts his influence in the face of more wiley operators, like Henry Clay.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking it depends on what one means by 'power'. Quite possibly, though, if there's a US-Spanish War in c1804 this will define politics for a long time to come, and involve other people than the 1812 generation. If its a DEFEAT then it will be even weirder still !

7) Without rising Anglo-American tensions, the biggest political butterfly is IMO the lack of the War Hawks. This was a group of jingoistic congressman elected in 1810: they include Henry Clay, John Calhoun, Richard Mentor Johnson, and others. Change Clay's election to the Speakership and you change the entire history of the committee system in the US Congress and thus the nature of the US Gov't. And Clay is very unlikely to be elected Speaker in 1811 without the War Hawks (though he may still seek and win a seat in the House of Reps).

Click to expand...

Interesting, very interesting. I was reading that in OTL Calhoun ending up at State was only due to a dual accident (Harrison's death making Tyler president, and a gun explosion killing his original Sec of State) so even in OTL he was two steps away from the influence he ended up having. Here, he could be more...or if the c1804 war with Spain is a defeat, or a relative defeat, he may come in on the second stage reaction to this...?

8) Napoleon himself. You've had Napoleon marginalized and defeated politically, but what does he do next? Settle into the background as the product of extreme circumstances? Or does he connive ways to regain glory and thus power? I'd imagine Carnot's regime is not supremely stable.

Click to expand...

I was kind of intending him to be dead...

9) War and Peace in Europe. I'd imagine the biggest question is what happens to alt-Amiens. You've said that Carnot intends to keep the peace with the British: will he stomach their defaulting on some agreed-to obligations in order to keep the peace? In the short-term I think this is the key. Also, is Austria still held to something like the Treaty of Luneville and thus the Treaty of Campo Formio, and hence is no longer the HRE? That might well distract them for a while. Certainly the question of a further war revolves around Carnot's actions and those of his Republic: if he eschews provocative action, then peace be default may prevail in Europe. Hence, my money is on events in Spain (or perhaps Austria/Germany) to provide a trigger.

Click to expand...

Definitely something close to those treaties... But the HRE question is a good one - I thought that came later ?#


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

DuQuense said:

?What happens to the Netherland Border ITTL?, No King Louis Bonaparte.

Click to expand...

I assume that is has the borders of the Batavian republic. Basicly OTL Netherlands except Zeeuws-Vlaanderen and Limburg.

pompejus said:

I assume that is has the borders of the Batavian republic. Basicly OTL Netherlands except Zeeuws-Vlaanderen and Limburg.

Click to expand...

This should help, I think

http://www.euratlas.net/AHP/histoire_europe/carte_europe_1800.html