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

[Nicomacheus]

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

Thanks for that; knowing your prominence on the boards, that's a real honor. Feel free to PM me at any time.

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

Ah, that could work, though there's still a lot of question to be answered. First, Pennsylvania did apportion its electors according to a popular vote in the 1790s. Some New England states may have, but I know PA did. South Carolina did not 'til after the Civil War, however.

On only really having the provinces as electoral vote groupings, that's fine. But if so, then the powers defined in the constitution might need to go into more depth. Those enumerated by the US Constitution assume the states under the federal government can take on responsibilities not granted to the US Gov't.

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

Makes sense.

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.

You're not alone. I've just been doing a fair amount of research on the topic of Spain for my new TL. (Shameless plug; see sig).

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 ?

Well, the USA wasn't really prepared to take on Great Britain, and yet it did anyway. I think the foolhardiness of the effort is mostly to be judged on the attitude of Great Britain toward the exercise: if they tacitly support it, then it's probably a fair risk. If they are against it, it's the utmost folly. I'd expect them to show their favor by swooping in to negotiate a peace treaty at a time most favorable to the side they favored.

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

Indeed, but I think it depends on the manner of the defeat. If it's a military defeat that results in little loss of territory, but merely a check on the ambitions of the young republic, it could actually make the Americans all the more determined. If on the other hand it does result in a palpable loss at the peace treaty, then things could get a whole lot worse. Either way I agree it could have huge import for the USA: it will take the place of the War of 1812 by either cementing or confirm the Union.

It will also be interesting because it will probably force Jefferson into much more of an overt turn-around from his professed policies in 1800 and those he will support in order to achieve victory. And of course, it's liable to be just as interesting for Spain and her empire.

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.

Makes sense.

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

I think you have a good point -- that the purchase definitely affected the strategic reality. Unfortunately, I can't think of too many politicians in the 1800s who offered a realistic counter-option besides relentless warfare. A few decades later Sam Houston might be around to support more of an accommodation, but he's too young as of yet.

On the other hand, Washington's dealings with the Indians in the 1790s does suggest what the alt-calculations might have been: then, he calculated that the military force necessary to subdue the Creeks (or the Shawnee) would bankrupt the US. Furthermore, he needed to win the loyalty of the Creeks who had been dealing with the Spanish in New Orleans in order to ensure the US held its border per the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Thus, he dedicated himself to diplomacy and wanted to create viable Indian reservations wherein the Indians could learn Western ways but whose borders were not so large that they invited White encroachment, since the US Gov't as well could not afford to keep white settlers out of Indian lands. And of course it turned out that the Creeks (or rather their wily chief Alexander McGillivray) used the concession won by the Treaty of New York to win more concessions from the Spanish.

I'd expect the general pattern to continue: the Native tribes will play the Americans off the British in the North and off the Spanish in the South. What's changing is the ability of the USA to solve the crisis through military means because as white settlement nears Indian lands, there's a bigger militia pool available to confront the Indians (since of course Jackson during the Creek War was using a lot of Tennessee militia).

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 !

True. The argument in my mind was that Jackson is fairly good general for the times (and for the field of American generals) and was certainly politically inclined. He'll be looking for an opportunity to allow his military success to translate to political office. Of course, he could be unsuccessful in either endeavor. If expansion and Jacksonianism are both blunted, then East - West tensions could become more and more problematic for the USA.

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...?

That's true of how Calhoun ended up as Sec State in the 1840s, but not of how he rose to national prominence. He was also VP under JQA and Jackson's first term, for example.

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

Well, that solves everything! I wonder though, would his brothers remain political and if so, what were their loyalties be. Some have always struck me as better administrators than Napoleon.

Looking forward to more.

 

[DuQuense]

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

Pre Erie Canal, New Orealeans was the main Export City for the American West [Ohio to Memphis] In Many ways it was more a Northern City than a Southerner one.
With less than 5000 troops in E/W Florida & New Orleans, I see no trouble with the US taking the Territory. Holding It is a Different Question.
I would assume that as soon as the US occupies the 'territory, There will be efforts to Purchase to Territories from Spain.

I read once on the Internet** That the US sent a team of diplomats to spain in 1806, to purchase Florida.
Spain realized it was not able to protect Florida. and the Diplomats made a deal.
They came back with a Treaty that was a lot like the 1819 Adams-Onis [Reason A-S was easy to negotiate]. Congress even appropriated the Monies.
However one of the US Delegates POed King Carlos IV, and He refused to Sign it. [ IIRC Something said in Confidence, overheard and Repeated].

So It is possible that the US could ""Win"" this war.

1805 would have the US control everything north of the Red River [Southern] west to the continental divide.
This would be a lot like OTL only Wankier.

**[Hate it when Google gives you something, and you can never remembre what you asked, to get it back.

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.

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.

IIRC By 1805 L'Overture had sucurred French control over the entire Island.
A united French Hispaniola, May take the Place of French Guiana, For Space launches.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Fascinating, reading about the Napoleonic wars ! British money to get European nations to fight, subsidies upon subsidies, Britain must have been wealthy. Prussia was a bit crap, Russia strong in its reserves.

Of course, the question is whether or not Tsar Paul is murdered in this ATL, and if so whether so early, whether Aleksandr is implicated etc

Regarding who gets the succession to the Swedish throne, reading Bryant he constantly refers to the King of Sweden as 'mad'. Karl XIII adopts Bernadotte in OTL, the latter having made his name most prominently on the Austerlitz campaign. There was a Vasa prince, last of his line, who could have been chosen king instead, Prince Gustav Vasa born 1799, son of the old king Gustav IV Adolph

Godoy managed to keep a hold on Spain until Trafalgar began to unravel it; even then, it took an actual French invasion to cause a rising up of popular sentiment. In this ATL, Spain seems to have come out of the wars quite well - OK, it loses Trinidad, and I am guessing Tobago, but it is otherwise intact. It would get a boost, a sort of bonus, from peace.

If the HRE continues its moribund existence, "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire" then Germany will be different - no thrones for Bavaria, Saxony, Wurttemberg etc. No Grand Duchy of Warsaw recreating Poland etc

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Tom_B]

An interesting TL (perhaps you should call it the Carnot cycle LOL?) with some pretty weird divergence. There was an offshoot of the Cherokee called the Chickamauga that left the Cherokee Nation and went west of the Mississippi around 1800 allying themselves with the Shawnee. Have to ask about Ireland. I assume the Act of Union went off on schedule. Is the rebel element looking towards Carnotic France for assistance? Are they getting any? I would point out that the French are adopting the letter of the US constitution rather than its spirit which was to get the local entities (states) to give up only a limited portion of their authority to a central government.

I agree that a Spanish America War is highly likely though Jefferson will be ill suited IMHO to lead it. Need to think about how this might play out.

If you want to eliminate Jackson have him die in a duel.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Sorry !

Screwed up on Sweden - Gustav IV Adolph was the allegedly mad one, but he abdicated in 1809. He was succeeded by his uncle, Karl XIII, who was the one who decided to adopt Bernadotte. Gustav IV lived until 1839, possibly in Switzerland (where he died), his son, Gustav Vasa having been born in 1799 lived til 1877 but off-hand I know little about him. One assumes it may have been possible for Karl XIII on his death in 1818 to have been succeeded by the young Gustav, but with his father living he may not have been free to do so.

Of course, for this ATL, a lot will depend on events in these years. IIRC Karl XIII first had someone else in mind, rather than Bernadotte (1810), to adopt as heir but I can't recall who.

- - -

A Spanish-American War in 1803-4 would be fine for this timeline, but needs not to derail it by getting too positive for the Americans. For a start, whilst in OTL the Spanish may have offered to sell Florida in c1804 that would have been an offer made in the face of British command of the sea, cutting off Spanish commerce, strangling its ports, and imperilling its fleet and any overseas operations. Remove this, and Spain stands able to send a fleet (and pre-Trafalgar they had quite a numerous and strong one) plus an army to the Americas

The US doesn't have a fleet - IIRC it has some superb heavy frigates under construction, but they are not exactly a match for a battleline containing the likes of the Santisima Trinidad]/i]. To a degree of course, the USA doesn't NEED a fleet since it will be a campaign fought on land, but a fleet allows an enemy to land where it wants, menace the rear etc - the OTL War of 1812-14 (never understand why its always just called The War of 1812...) shows that. Would a Spanish commander have the nerve, the imagination to attack Washington DC directly ?

But what the Spanish certainly COULD do is reinforce both Pensacola and New Orleans. Also, as pointed out (thanks !) the Spanish were one of several players in suborning each others' Indians, and could have used divisions amongst them to hit, or at least endanger, the US in the rear. For a start, the Shawnee remain undaunted, and approaching their maximum power. Its a bit too early to draw too close parallels to OTL's 1812, but US encroachments on their territory (treaties signed by breakway factions in the name of the whole Indian Nation) have already angered the war clans, and if they are encouraged to think that it is now or never that they fight for their independence, then they might well do so - especially if Spain matched words with actions

And match it she might. Godoy would know that his power rests upon the illusion of Spanish strength - however much we could argue the balance between reality and illusion, for the Spanish to view themselves as a leading great power in military terms, it is an illusion. He would therefore not be able to countenance an American threat to Spain's position - it would undermine national pride, and in so doing it would destroy him. So he would have to give Spanish resistance full commitment.

In this, he has some obvious advantages - his fleet can operate with impunity in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean; Mexico, Cuba etc are loyal and useful contributors to his expedition; neither Britain nor France will impede him navally.

Of course, the US have advantages - interior lines, state (or territory) militias at hand, and ready to march, good leaders, albeit to some degree unproven. And North and South would be united in the endeavour - New Orleans is as important to the North in transporting trade down the Mississippi as it is to the South in opening up expansion.

Thus I would envision the war hard-fought, and the gains in the end small. At the most, and I am not sure at all of the feasibility of even this, it would comprise New Orleans and West Florida (ie West of the panhandle and thus not including Pensacola). Perhaps if Spain realises the importance of New Orleans themselves they fight to hold it, admit only to an opening of it to all trade in the treaty, and cede, or sell, West Florida to give the USA a Southern coast, albeit one built on Mobile and Biloxi. It would be interesting to see their rise in such a scenario

This could be what I mean by winning by default - securing only the OTL coasts of Mississippi and Alabama, and failing to take New Orleans, even though the commercial aim of opening it permanently to all is gained. It will have been a hard and costly war, and people will ask whether it was worth it. If one throws the Shawnee into this mix, then who knows what has happened in the old NW ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

If the Spanish-American War breaks out in 1803, and drags on throughout 1804, then this is definitely going to have an effect on the US presidential election. I certainly DON'T think Jefferson is going to be returned in a landslide !

The war will be seen to be dragging on, the US failure to take and secure New Orleans will be a major negative, and if the war is over by election time, and the peace gives only West Florida, then Pinckney may have a good chance. IIRC he is the guy who negotiated a treaty about ten years previously to bloodlessly expand US territory to the South, shrinking the size of Florida by considerable enough margin that a new US Territory could be created. The Federalist platform of a South Carolina president nominee and a New York vice presidential nominee unites both Northern and Southern dissident votes.

OTL Jefferson had the Louisiana Purchase and a peace dividend from the cessation 1801-04 of war in Europe. Here, he has not the first, and the latter collapses on the basis that the USA ends up at war with Spain - what point peace in Europe if it frees a European power to fight a full-scale war in N America ?

I'm going to lean towards a victory for Pinckney and Rufus King

As the pic from Wiki shows, the division between popular vote and state legislature selection of electors has become much more equal by 1804 compared to 1796.

The unanswered question remains "What of the Shawnee ?"

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Ireland is an intriguing question - France is not likely to support anything there after signing the Peace of Amiens in this ATL, and IIRC the main leaders are dead. I was reading in Bryant that Addington wanted to bring about a degree of Catholic emancipation, including with regards to the army, but the combination of renewed international crisis and the king's intransigence brought it down

One thing I am wondering about, is what happens if George III goes loopy in this scenarion ? OTL there were great efforts made to AVOID a Regency, but with peace secure, the old wars over, a new age seemingly here, would Addington's need for a head of state willing to deal on Catholics have enough power to overcome the conservative impulses and propel the Prince of Wales to an earlier Regency ?

Having attained it, and had the controversial legislation passed, would George ever intend to relinquish it ?

- - -

Would parts of Europe fight against themselves ?

Without British money, I don't see Austria re-entering the field in Italy, despite her losses there. And if not in Italy, then not in Germany unless something happens there to propel her to defend her interests

She still rules in Swabia, as well as Tyrol, Bavaria is thus smaller and an Electorate not a kingdom. Hannover remains British, but what of Warsaw ? Is it Russian ? When did Prussia lose it ?

- - -

Its a curious thing, but nature abhores a vaccuum. As we see in OTL with Al Quaeda and the rise of Russian militarism in recent years, so too would a peace-in-1801 world see new threats rise from seemingly nowhere, and old ones recover a strength presumed lost

One wonders what happens to the Ottoman Empire in this scenario. Would it recover unsuspected strength, perhaps at sea, or would it see convulsions beyond those of OTL ?


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well, the USA wasn't really prepared to take on Great Britain, and yet it did anyway. I think the foolhardiness of the effort is mostly to be judged on the attitude of Great Britain toward the exercise: if they tacitly support it, then it's probably a fair risk. If they are against it, it's the utmost folly. I'd expect them to show their favor by swooping in to negotiate a peace treaty at a time most favorable to the side they favored

On the basis that if Spain is going to lose anything anywhere, then they should lose it to Britain, I would expect Britain to support Spain over the USA. As you say, not to the point of war, but stepping in later 1804 to negotiate a treaty which leaves New Orleans in Spanish hands, but with a guarantee it will always be open. I imagine that the British to one degree or other could hold the Shawnee over the head of the Americans, tho I am still to come to any idea as to what is happening there

Indeed, but I think it depends on the manner of the defeat. If it's a military defeat that results in little loss of territory, but merely a check on the ambitions of the young republic, it could actually make the Americans all the more determined. If on the other hand it does result in a palpable loss at the peace treaty, then things could get a whole lot worse. Either way I agree it could have huge import for the USA: it will take the place of the War of 1812 by either cementing or confirm the Union.

It will also be interesting because it will probably force Jefferson into much more of an overt turn-around from his professed policies in 1800 and those he will support in order to achieve victory. And of course, it's liable to be just as interesting for Spain and her empire.

A victory by default seems most likely - ie gaining West Florida and the permanent opening of New Orleans, but a realisation that the US failed to gain more. Pinckney certainly could probably claim that the TERRITORIAL gains, ie the OTL Mississippi and Alabama coasts, could have been gained by negotiation and purchase, so that the whole war is pointless. I'm leaning on the side of him getting elected president in 1804 on the basis of this

Of course, to a degree, its a defeatist argument - but in a sense its only an argument made to get him elected. Once in power, his administration is going to have a fully realistic view of things. I imagine that perhaps its main focus will be the fall-out from the Shawnee - whatever this actually is !

As for Spain, a peace on these terms could certainly be spun as a victory by Godoy in Madrid. Maybe it cements his dominance for at least the rest of the decade, especially if Carlos IV is not all that interested in ruling personally. Sure, the Prince of the Asturias' party will remain strong, but in a way it would be inviolate, as being composed of the heir, and Godoy MIGHT be clever enough to use it as a vehicle to let off steam - ie a sort of pressure valve that prevents meaningful resistance to his own regime ever coming to anything. After all, with Carnot successfully turning revolution into peace in Paris, there will be the ever-present fear of republicanism getting a grip in Iberia

On the other hand, Washington's dealings with the Indians in the 1790s does suggest what the alt-calculations might have been: then, he calculated that the military force necessary to subdue the Creeks (or the Shawnee) would bankrupt the US. Furthermore, he needed to win the loyalty of the Creeks who had been dealing with the Spanish in New Orleans in order to ensure the US held its border per the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Thus, he dedicated himself to diplomacy and wanted to create viable Indian reservations wherein the Indians could learn Western ways but whose borders were not so large that they invited White encroachment, since the US Gov't as well could not afford to keep white settlers out of Indian lands. And of course it turned out that the Creeks (or rather their wily chief Alexander McGillivray) used the concession won by the Treaty of New York to win more concessions from the Spanish.

I'd expect the general pattern to continue: the Native tribes will play the Americans off the British in the North and off the Spanish in the South. What's changing is the ability of the USA to solve the crisis through military means because as white settlement nears Indian lands, there's a bigger militia pool available to confront the Indians (since of course Jackson during the Creek War was using a lot of Tennessee militia).

The Spanish-American War of 1803-4 might actually solve this, if we firm it up into 'canon' for this timeline. If the Creeks and the Cherokee prove loyal, and with guarantees from Washington (DC) they may well see this as the logical course, then they are going to stand in opposition to the Shawnee, who one way or another go to deadly war against the USA I am thinking.

The state militia are not available for intimidation or use against the Four Tribes, as they form the bulk of the initial army used against the Spanish. During the war, perhaps some sort of permanent force is envisaged, or created, but if so it has to draw on the existing veteran manpower - ie the militias, especially if there is war in the NW against the Shawnee

The balance of power by the time of the peace treaty may be such that veteran volunteer units of the Cherokee and Creek etc could return home confident of defending their lands, and that the militia have become a sort of hybrid nascent permanent army - after all, the USA is now going to need to keep a constant watch on its Western and Southern borders. Few will view this treaty with the Spanish as the last word

Pinckney's election to president could well see the USA head down a different route from OTL in its long-term policies vis-a-vis the Indians, tho once again one feels a need to wonder at what the outcome of war with the Shawnee has been

True. The argument in my mind was that Jackson is fairly good general for the times (and for the field of American generals) and was certainly politically inclined. He'll be looking for an opportunity to allow his military success to translate to political office. Of course, he could be unsuccessful in either endeavor. If expansion and Jacksonianism are both blunted, then East - West tensions could become more and more problematic for the USA.

OK, so Jackson is, oddly, both a Judge of the Tennessee Supreme Court AND commander of the Tennessee militia in 1803 (appointed the latter as a colonel in 1801 at the age of 34). As such he must be heavily involved in the Spanish-American War, perhaps one of the first commanders into battle, alongside the Mississippi (Territory) militia (or its ATL equivalent)

He is going to be focused on fighting the Spanish, maybe even roaming far West into Louisiana in raids, but without the ability to transform land ravaged into land won. Maybe he fights the Spanish-allied Indians, even the Chickamaugee, but possibly he is doing this with Cherokee volunteers in his army.

How far someone of his age can go would seem to be based on ability and success at this juncture in time - if his raids into the West prove useful to the overall war effort, perhaps cutting the Spanish off from the Shawnee, then he would be promoted to a higher command. And here perhaps he meets his nemesis, albeit not necessarily a fatal one

Maybe he commands one portion of a 'final' US assault on New Orleans in the Summer of 1804, maybe the Spanish resistance is too strong, and the embattled Jefferson agrees to British mediation. Maybe Britain has been supporting the Shawnee since Jackson (perhaps) cut them off from the Spanish, and maybe Jefferson realises that unless he agrees a peace he may well find the USA fighting Britain as well come 1805 (internal politics in Britain may be heading towards this end)

Thus 1804 remembers Jackson as commander of a wing of an American army that failed to take New Orleans and returned home in despair after Washington (DC) signed away most of their gains

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

IIRC By 1805 L'Overture had secured French control over the entire Island.
A united French Hispaniola

Of course events 1801-05 will be affected by divergence in Europe, but IIRC Spanish remnants were restricted to some fortresses. Damn, I wish I had a memory !

- - -

I would point out that the French are adopting the letter of the US constitution rather than its spirit which was to get the local entities (states) to give up only a limited portion of their authority to a central government

Very true - my reading of the 1790s seems to indicate that it was the lack of a clear and accepted method of appointing heads of state that constantly bedevilled the revolution. I was thinking that an elected president would help to overcome this. I don't know what Sieyes' plans were in OTL until derailed by Napoleon, but it seems to me that changing how things worked at the HEAD of the state would eventually occur to someone

I envisaged Joubert and Sieyes as an interim element, and the real change coming with Moreau and Carnot. If the head of state can get a direct popular mandate (similar I suppose to Napoleon's OTL referendum in its effect) then it would lift him free of immediate factional/sectional fighting

Thus, I am not looking for a copy of the US constitution so much as a copy of its electoral system


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

I was thinking about Britain - if Addington (if I've got this right !) does bring about a Regency and pass elements of Catholic emancipation, then national politics is thrown off course

Fox lives, and would be the major voice for a different direction. If I read Pitt right, he basically resigned himself to obscurity and it was only national emergency that brought him back.

- - -

What I'm aiming for in this timeline is to have sufficient divergence, a US where Spain acts as a bulwark Westwards and where Europe enjoys a completely different destiny. There's no point heading down a line where the US attains its OTL existence by a different route - what's the fun in that ?!

I'm happy to see it battle, to see it fight, to see it slowly gain, but this is a world where the massive gains by purchase never happen, where every gain is slowly fought for. Manifest Destiny becomes a fight, a steady slog, war after war, that kind of thing, leaving in its wake a different internal structure to the US

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Fox has a chance of becoming Prime Minister if George III remains officially (if not in reality) incapacitated and the Prince Regent in power.

...at this point I went to bed !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

I'll re-read that bit on Ireland - doesn't seem LIKELY to have been Addington but I need to see what it actually said again

And was Warsaw and all that area part of Prussia when the various treaties ended the war in 1801 ? It seems that they hadn't lost it yet...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Sorry !

I completely screwed up British politics. Streuth, all I seem to be doing in this thread is apologising for my ignorance. All I can say in my defence is that its not an area I have studied in much depth before, and where I had studied it (eg Sir John Moore in Iberia) I had studied a specific aspect of history and not gone far beyond the immediate political concerns.

It was Grenville who resigned as Prime Minister over the Catholic issue, and that was not until 1807 so is not immediately relevant. Addington was the ANTI-Catholic installed by the king when he sacked Pitt. That was why I was having trouble trying to square the circle

I suppose the question is what does Addington's ministry do after securing peace with France ? Pitt, if I read this right, had promised to remain in the country and let Addington have a fair crack at things, and in OTL only returned because he became convinced that the very existence of the country was in peril. He is in deteriorating health the longer the timeline goes on, so may well NOT do anything more in it.

The political life of Britain appears to be strangely fractured at the turn of the 19th century, presumably what the trials and tribulations of the Revolutionary Wars have wrought. Grenville leads a pro-Catholic group, Fox leads a pacifistic radical group, Canning leads what remains of the Pitt-ite Tories, and Addington leads the government.

Regarding the question asked previously on Nelson he is not a Lord Nelson for nothing. He is a member of Addington's government, and supported him in the House of Lords. If peace lasts, then he may well have as long a post-navy career as in OTL Wellington did post-army.

Presumably, any outbreak of war between Spain and the USA in 1803 (since that year seems rather a nice one to have a war in !) would impact the political life of London more than most goings on on the continent, in Paris, Vienna etc.

Is the hithertofore-posited scenario of a British-brokered peace in 1804 feasible with Addington remaining as Prime Minister, or might a combination of Grenville and Fox, perhaps contriving to have the Prince of Wales become Regent, brought down the government ? This latter seems a bit odd, but consider that with Europe seemingly settled, the question of Ireland, and of Catholic Emancipation won't go away. Addington is vehemently against this, with George III's support, but if events in Ireland look like heading downhill, then a coalition to implement the necessary laws, king or no king, might come to the fore.

In OTL his advisors only just stopped George III from opening parliament with the words "My Lords and Peacocks" and if he had then pressure for a Regency could combine with pressure for a solution to the Irish/Catholic crisis to bring down Addington. In OTL, when Pitt became convinced of the need to do this he wanted to include Fox in his cabinet, but George III refused. Here, Pitt may well remain off the political stage, and leave it to Grenville, Windham and Fox to press matters. IIRC there's an election around this time, and in OTL Addington's supporters lost a load of seats.

A Grenville-Fox ministry, perhaps quixotically supported in international affairs by Canning, might look to the war in N America as something to solve, rather than tolerate.

On the other hand, perhaps it would be simpler to have Canning play the role of his master and head up the country? I am trying to stay away from the on-the-face-of-it obvious solution of having Pitt turn on Addington as per OTL, but in the end maybe that's what's needed ? Pro-Catholic reform, and with a strong take on British power projection. Of course, he doesn't need George III to be removed, but if we DO remove him, and have the Prince Regent appoint Pitt, then we could include Grenville, Fox and Canning, if they wished. Of course (again !) without a national emergency, there would be little need to have a broad coalition, and Pitt could well get what he wants by merging his supporters, including Canning, with Addington's, including Nelson.

If we join this to the N American stage, then we could be looking at a situation where Britain wants to end the war without weakening Spain (who might be seen as a monarchist bulwark against the spread of republican ideals or some such). The Shawnee may have been supported by Spain, cut off perhaps by what I envisaged for Jackson, and then picked up, as it were, by the British to hold over the head of the Americans. Make peace or we support the war clans, that sort of thing.

Remember, the Indians never consented to their transfer from British to US oversight - it was Britain in signing the treaty recognising US independence who signed over the NW Territory. Its inhabitants had no say in it, and do not consider themselves bound by US claims to their lands. That's as much at the heart of the Shawnee resistance as the encroachment of white settlers with treaties such as Greenville.

Hmmm, ideas swirl around and land where they would. Thoughts ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Even after losing their Ohio River forts the British remained in possession of their Great Lakes forts through which they continued to supply their Indian allies with trade items and weapons in exchange for furs. This lingering British presence that was not settled until the War of 1812 finally drove the British out of the Northwest Territories

Tecumseh and William Henry Harrison, had both been junior participants in the Battle of Fallen Timbers at the close of the Northwest Indian War in 1794. Tecumseh had declined to sign the Treaty of Greenville that had ended the war and ceded much of present-day Ohio, long inhabited by the Shawnees and other Native Americans, to the United States. However, many Indian leaders in the region accepted the Greenville terms, and for the next ten years pan-tribal resistance to American hegemony seemed to fade

OTL it took Tenskwatawa (The Prophet, which is a damned sight easier to spell) to lead a national revival in 1805, but in the butterflied situation of this ATL things may come to a head earlier, especially with Spanish involvement. It looks as if Tecumseh, who born in 1768 would be 35 in 1803, will actually be the main warlike leader. Indian tradition was for villages to decide on war, more than on a leader to decree and a Nation to follow, so he could stir up a load of Black Hoof's followers by visiting them and speaking in his fine oratory village by village. Representing the war between the USA and Spain as the Shawnee's last chance to fight for their independence, he could well win over enough to fight a war. In the previous war, British traders had supplied them without getting directly involved, so this route remains at least half-open.

Added to overt Spanish support, and presumably a Spanish-led force in the area in the early stages of the war, then Tecumseh could emerge with enough of a following to really hassle Harrison. American reprisals and rhetoric could have the affect of driving more Indians onto a warlike footing, since by their response the US may be seeming to make what Tecumseh had prophesised (not in a religious fashion) come true.

With the US heavily committed in the South, what sort of force and what sort of war could Harrison get up ? Would Jefferson do deals with the various competing states who claimed the lands for their own, thus changing the shape of the USA ?

And what sort of peace deal could the British broker for the Shawnee ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Tom_B]

Tertium quids & Panic of 1809

If we go with the War of 1803 as a clear Jefferson failure, then the OTL trend in American political development is reversed. I could see the Federalists squeezing out a narrow victory (at least in electoral votes they might lose the popular votes because of getting next to no votes in western states) in 1804. One offshoot is I believe there would be a schism within the Democratic Republican Party with the so called tertium quids led by the extremely eccentric John Randolph splitting completely and forming the Constitutional Republican Party. This party could last a decade an while never a threat to dominate American politics would complicate things.

Another bit of political strangeness could be Burr emerging as a major power in the larger residual faction of the Democratic Republicans.

Still another bit of strangeness is Rufus King who had strong abolitionist sentiments for that time is going to be an uncomfortable VP to such a strongly proslavery president.

The US economy has some problems. Exports during the Napoleonic Wars helped it OTL and I could see something akin to the Panic of 1819 happening a decade earlier. However there is a good chance in TTL that the charter of the First Bank of the United States is reaffirmed.

If Jackson is a well known hero in the War of 1803 then he could emerge as a Presidential candidate as early as 1812.

 

[Tom_B]

Tecumseh & Whatzisname

Unfortuntely Tecumseh and the Prophet are minor players in 1803-1804 and so should not be getting Spanish attention. The event that made Tenskwatawa is when Harrison told his followers that if he really was a prophet then he should be doing things like stopping the sun and moon. The Prophet accepted the challenge and said he would do just that on June 16, 1806 and lo and behold there was a total eclipse. Nice going Harry.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Unfortuntely Tecumseh and the Prophet are minor players in 1803-1804 and so should not be getting Spanish attention. The event that made Tenskwatawa is when Harrison told his followers that if he really was a prophet then he should be doing things like stopping the sun and moon. The Prophet accepted the challenge and said he would do just that on June 16, 1806 and lo and behold there was a total eclipse. Nice going Harry.

I'll reread what I read again, I thought it was saying that Tecumseh back then was leader of the faction that didn't sign Greenville and resisted Black Hoof's efforts to settle down and accommodate the US

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Nicomacheus]

GW,

I very much like your ideas about the Spanish-American war of 1803-4! I think you're probably right that Godoy would try / need to use the war to prop up the image of Spanish grandeur. I do think the Americans might need a bit more than a firm guarantee about New Orleans, but if the border is adjusted such that the USA controls the eastern bank of the Mississippi through Lake Pontchatrain then they have a border close enough to the city of New Orleans that they can make a better fuss if the Spanish go back on their word. The idea of Jackson as a second-tier general in the conflict seems great as does the idea of winning the firm loyalty of the Southern Indians through the course of the war.

I do wonder though what effect the war would have on Spain and its Empire. Consider: Jose de San Martin will still be an army officer in the Spanish army. Simon Bolivar OTL was returning home to Venezuela with his new wife, María Teresa Rodríguez del Toro y Alaysa. She died of a tropical fever and the loss left Bolivar free to return to Europe and become a revolutionary. And Francisco de Miranda has been in London trying to get someone to help him agitate for the independence of Venezuela. Bolivar's return could well be butterflied, thus leaving him a happily married man with a longing for a great destiny but no path to it. San Martin could very well serve in some capacity in the war. Francisco de Miranda, however, could return to the United States (he had visited in the 1790s) and try to get Jefferson to sanction support for a revolution in Venezuela as part of the war effort. That could be interesting (not that I think it results in a free Venezuela, more that it may change the nature of US support for Spanish American indepenentist forces).

Back to the US, a revival of the Federalists on a platform of self-strengthening and centralization might be very interesting. A lot of OTL political traditions have yet to be created or cemented. I earlier mentioned the Committee system which organized the way by which Congress expresses its oversight of the branches of the Executive. OTL it was an innovation of Henry Clay in 1807 (per my previous). Change this and you can begin to seriously affect the way Congress and the President interact which can in turn influence the distribution of power between the branches. Similarly, the Caucus system will now be significantly changed. OTL this was the process whereby the Democratic-Republicans made it their practice to nominate candidates for the national ticket by a vote of all their Congressman. OTL this may not even happen since the Dems will lose in 1804, but even that is big change since Jackson will not rail against it when he creates and support national conventions as an alternative mechanism. And I just realized that there's a chance you could butterfly part of the 12th Amendment: it was approved in Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified on June 15, 1804 (189 days), in time for the new process to be in place for the 1804 election. With the 12th, Electors are directed to vote for a President and for a Vice President rather than for two choices for President with the VP going to the runner-up. TTL this occurs in the middle of a war (potentially); still hard to see it not passing after the fiasco that was the Burr controversy during the election of 1800. In the Big Picture, I'd expect that the lack of the rise of Jacksonian politics and the continued presence of the Federalists will keep a bit of populism out of US politices. This could well translate into a bit more a class-feeling in US politics, particularly since opportunities to strike out on the frontier wil be limitied and thus the basic land-cost equation that allieviated class tensions may begin to shift (this would be a very long term trend over the course of the 19th century, since the USA in 1804 is still very undensely populated given its size).

As far as the Shawnee go, it looks to me that a significant conflict is in the offing with the US. The question is whether the British let the Americans fight, since they are likely to lose the initial encounters and need to re-group over a period of some years. The nature of the fighting could be pretty interesting, particularly if, say, you have Jackson leading a veteran force to releive Harrison along with a contingent of Civilized Indian allies. I'd also expect the US to be more intent on trying to secure its recognized border. This could well have played a role in the negotiations for the treaty for the Spanish-American war: confirmation of US sovereignty over the NW. Also, I should note that the various state claims have already been ceded to the Federal government under the Northwest Ordinance (the last being Connecticut's Western Reserve, ceded in 1800). The problem I think is that the Shawnee under Tecumseh present a much more unified front than the Civilized Tribes. Perhaps they can be given the Upper Penninsula of Michigan as a semi-sovereign reserve. Perfect place to be North America's Switzerland. Interesting also to see how the Southern tribes react. I'd kind of like the see the Cherokee and the Creeks become advocates of the US. Perhaps Jackson's expereince leads him to be a friend of the Indians, since their methods of warfare prove more viable for control of the contient?

Wish I could offer intelligent comment on the British political scene. Certainly would be interesting to see Fox come to the fore: that would certainly ensure peace with France. I've always wondered what might happen if you get Britain reforming a bit sooner: might it actually encourage more revolutionary sentiment?

Great stuff,

Nico

EDIT: Hmm, if the Shawnee really aren't so monolithic (which makes sense) perhaps the example of the Civilized Tribes will lead to their being co-opted?

 

[Tom_B]

Is Spanish intelligence that savvy that far up the Mississippi that they are supporting Tecumseh during the War of 1803? I am thinking it more likely that just as the war is ending there is some contact by a Spanish agent that spurs Tecumseh & brother to wrongly think the time is ripe to start a war. The end result is likely to be a mostly Shawnee war in late 1806 (after the eclipse). The Federalists are likely to see this an opportunity to prove yet again the need for a large standing army and pursue this war vigorously.

Black Hawk was unhappy with a treaty his people signed in 1804. Maybe he gets involved as a cobelligerent.

Another interesting loose end in TTL you might consider is the career of the Lafitte brothers.

 

[Nicomacheus]

Is Spanish intelligence that savvy that far up the Mississippi that they are supporting Tecumseh during the War of 1803? I am thinking it more likely that just as the war is ending there is some contact by a Spanish agent that spurs Tecumseh & brother to wrongly think the time is ripe to start a war. The end result is likely to be a mostly Shawnee war in late 1806 (after the eclipse). The Federalists are likely to see this an opportunity to prove yet again the need for a large standing army and pursue this war vigorously.

This seems very logical to me.

Black Hawk was unhappy with a treaty his people signed in 1804. Maybe he gets involved as a cobelligerent.

Against or on the side of the USA?

Another interesting loose end in TTL you might consider is the career of the Lafitte brothers.

Indeed! Perhaps they shuttle Francisco Miranda to an ignominious defeat?