The Directorate: Draft Thread

So, which of the following options do you think is more plausible, and why?

- France supports Jefferson (how?) in order to increase the chance of gaining a solid ally in the shape of the US under a Democratic-Republican administration.
- France remains neutral and isolationist, trying to avoid enmeshing itself further in other countries' political affairs.
- France steers some kind of middle path.

They know that getting involved in American domestic politics is something that could spectacularly backfire, but the potential rewards are vast.
 
I like the timeline Justin. We don't have a decent No Napoleon timeline, and this one looks good.

My thoughts are as follows considering France's policies and main objectives in North America:

  • Haiti - Will they leave? Will they attempt to keep it?
  • Louisiana - Can they keep Lousiana from American Encroachment

My simplistic analysis based on what happened in OTL:
If they leave Haiti, then Louisiana will soon follow. If they can keep Haiti, then Louisiana may be kept.

I doubt the French could influence American politics that much, considering the distances involved (2 months each way) and the effect of Washington's belief in neutrality.
 
I doubt the French could influence American politics that much, considering the distances involved (2 months each way) and the effect of Washington's belief in neutrality.

They probably couldn't influence it much, I agree, but without the blatant cronyism and corruption of the Convention deputies, the Directorate adheres to the constitution and has far more popular support (both domestic and foreign) than in OTL. As such, in the later stages of the Jay Treaty debates in US Senate, the Francophile position is more sympathetic anyway. Even a small backhander to the Jeffersonians could, at this point in time, be enough to allow the Democratic-Republican movement to reach critical mass.
 

Thande

Donor
All luck to JP for the TL, we need more French Revolution TLs that aren't about Napoleon (well, to be honest, we could even use more that ARE).

Oth, can you give me the details for the book you mentioned? I might be interested in purchasing my own copy...
 
They probably couldn't influence it much, I agree, but without the blatant cronyism and corruption of the Convention deputies, the Directorate adheres to the constitution and has far more popular support (both domestic and foreign) than in OTL. As such, in the later stages of the Jay Treaty debates in US Senate, the Francophile position is more sympathetic anyway. Even a small backhander to the Jeffersonians could, at this point in time, be enough to allow the Democratic-Republican movement to reach critical mass.

And - you know what? - that's exactly what I'm going to do. :D

January 1796: Following in the footsteps of its future ally, and subtley influenced by the Machiavellian manouvring of Jefferson, Washington dispatches a delegation to the new French Directorate to discuss future terms of trade. For Washington and the Federalists this is little more than an attempt to keep France sweet but - without the knowledge of the official delegation - Monroe takes the opportunity to attend a secret meeting with the French executive. Initial negotiations drives a wedge between two factions in the French executive. One group, citing the 1793 constitution, claim that France should attempt to maintain neutrality and isolationism, whilst the other believe that they should offer whatever support they can to Jefferson and his allies in defeating the Jay Treaty and pushing a Francophilic foreign policy agenda. After an animated debate, those in favour of a policy of isolationism manage to secure a majority vote, arguing that the comparatively cash-strapped French Directorate could presumably find better uses for its finances than the funding of foreign politicans. Following the meeting, however, one of the members of the executive (1) arranges to talk with Monroe. Acting as the spokesperson for a consortium of anonymous politicians and private individuals, he offers a discrete private donation of 15,000F (roughly equivalent to £1.75m / $3m today); a gift that Monroe readily accepts.

Say hello to Jefferson, a strong candidate to become the second president of the US. :p

-----

(1) Who? A fictional character, or someone from OTL? Any suggestions?
 
One thing for the US to look forward to is a war with Spain over New Orleans (and Florida -both East and West).

Oh, I forgot that Louisiana wasn't a part of France at this time. My mistake. Still, what's the directory's policy towards Haiti. I think that it will become more important as time goes on.

If Haiti remains free, then it will be an example to the South of a "free black" colony, a scary proposition! The South will probably lean towards (England???) Spain while the North will be more Francophile (quite the reverse of Jefferson's intentions).

If Haiti is turned back to slavery, then expect exactly the opposite with the South being firmly in the French lap. If there is a sectional crisis, see France worm their way into being the South biggest ally.
 
Oh, I forgot that Louisiana wasn't a part of France at this time. My mistake. Still, what's the directory's policy towards Haiti. I think that it will become more important as time goes on.

If Haiti remains free, then it will be an example to the South of a "free black" colony, a scary proposition! The South will probably lean towards (England???) Spain while the North will be more Francophile (quite the reverse of Jefferson's intentions).

If Haiti is turned back to slavery, then expect exactly the opposite with the South being firmly in the French lap. If there is a sectional crisis, see France worm their way into being the South biggest ally.

Well, my logic is that without the Quasi-War of 1798, the French Navy would be free in 1798/9 to launch an fairly strong attempt to crush the Haitian resistance and retake Saint-Domingue, if that was what they wanted. Exactly what the new regime makes of the revolution and - for that matter - slavery in general, that's another question entirely.
 
Any suggestions as to how I should tackle the Napoleonic Wars, specifically the end of the First Coalition?

The Directorate makes peace with Britain, and is already at peace with Spain and Prussia. That leaves Naples, Austria and Sardinia-Piedmonte, against whom the Directorate are going to continue to wage war, focusing their efforts particularly on driving back Austria through 1796-7.

Without Napoleon, how would the butterfly effect, uh, affect the locations, outcome and prominent figures of specific skirmishes? The general trend I want is the manpower who would have been fighting the British to be reassigned to the Austrian front, hopefully mitigating the absense of Napoleon, and maybe even enjoying more/faster successes than in OTL.

I'm really no military historian, so could you people throw me the names of some places where battles in the French Revolutionary Wars were inevitable in OTL, or likely in ATL for strategic & geographic reasons?
 

Faeelin

Banned
Lazare Hoche might be more successful in the Rhineland and Germany, dunno about Italy.

He'll probably establish a CisRhenian Republic, so expect fun things out of that.
 
Lazare Hoche might be more successful in the Rhineland and Germany, dunno about Italy.

He'll probably establish a CisRhenian Republic, so expect fun things out of that.

I don't know about that. The Directorate are only continuing to attack the remainder of the First Coalition in a 'means justify the ends' kind of way. They're trying to protect the integrity of the French state, and nothing else. As a political unit, they certainly don't have any imperial ambitions *within* Europe. They're only attacking in order to effect an eventual surrender. That said, they will also be aiding native liberal revolutions where they can, so Switzerland will still become the Helvetic Republic.

Of course, the French generals might very well be ignoring the Directorate's orders, and doing their own thing.
 
Concerning Haiti, without Napoleon in power, I see zero chances for the planter to get the french government to reinstate slavery, much less comit any troop to it.

Concerning french generals, every single one of Napoleons general and/or marshalls are still there, plus a few others, which died because of Napoleon ( Kleber ) or were exiled/cashiered by him ( Dumas ). Just for fun, have Dumas play as important role ( http://www.gnammankou.com/dumas.htm ).

Oh, and what about Talleyrand?
 
Concerning Haiti, without Napoleon in power, I see zero chances for the planter to get the french government to reinstate slavery, much less comit any troop to it.

A good point. I might even get the Directorate to try and encourage the British to commit the majority of troops to the 'reconquista' of Hispaniola, setting up the entire island as an Anglo-French condominum.

Is that even remotely plausible?

Concerning french generals, every single one of Napoleons general and/or marshalls are still there, plus a few others, which died because of Napoleon ( Kleber ) or were exiled/cashiered by him ( Dumas ). Just for fun, have Dumas play as important role ( http://www.gnammankou.com/dumas.htm ).

Oh, and what about Talleyrand?

With the eventual 'defeat' of the First Coalition, there's going to be a significant number of returning veterans, who are going to vote for people who represent their values. Yes, Kleber, Dumas, and Talleyrand will all be making an appearance, I suspect, but not quite yet.
 
Take 3

Ian the Admin said:
December 17, 1793: In the middle of the French Revolution, Royalist forces have retaken the city of Toulon and called in British and foreign troops. At the end of a months-long siege, French forces retake Toulon in the middle of the night. The following morning the architect of their victory, artillery commander Napoleon Bonaparte, lies dead from a British bayonet.

November 1794: The Jay Treaty is signed by the US and Great Britain, laying a foundation for the future strengthening of diplomatic and trading ties between the two nations. It does, however, still need to be ratified by the US Senate and the British Parliament before it comes into effect.

April 5, 1795: With the signing of the Treaty of Basle, France ends hostilities with Prussia.

May 16, 1795: The Batavian and French republics sign the treaty of Den Haag, forming a defensive alliance. The Batavian Republic cedes Dutch Flanders, Maastrict and Venlo to France.

June 8, 1795: On the death of Louis XVII, the 10-year-old pretender to the throne of France, the child’s uncle issued a proclamation declaring himself Louis XVIII, and announcing his intention to restore the Old Regime and punish all involved in the Revolution back to 1789.

June 1795: Washington submits the Jay Treaty to Senate for ratification. The specifics of the treaty prove contentious, however, and ratification is quickly bogged down by argument and dissent. The Jeffersonian Republicans see the treaty as embodying the views and ideals of Washington's Federalists, and decry it as unrepresentative of US opinion. Furthermore, they argue that the 1788 Franco-American Alliance is still in effect, and that the ratification of the Jay Treaty would breach the terms of the 1788 Treaty, potentially leading to a rapid degeneration in diplomatic relations with France. The strength of their opposition of the ratification of the treaty causes Jefferson's supporters to - in the words of Chambers - coordinate "activity between leaders at the capital, and leaders, actives and popular followings in the states, counties and towns." (Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776-1809 (1963), p. 80)

July 22, 1795: Spain joins Prussia in signing the Treaty of Basle, ceding the Eastern two thirds of the island of Hispanolia to France, and putting an end to Franco-Spanish hostilities.

September 1795: Deputies of the French National Convention draft a new constitution which called for a bicameral legislature, supported property rights, and excluded the masses from political power. Executive power was to be placed in the hands of the Directory, consisting of five people elected by the legislature. A referendum was held to approve the new constitution, and the electoral assemblies voted favourably. In the days before the constitution was to come into effect, a coalition of deputies - determined to protect their position of power - forced through a law which stated that two thirds of the new government had to have been former members of the Convention.

October 5, 1795: The conservatives and moderates amongst the French people were far from impressed by this display of political opportunism by the deputies, and - with covert support from the British - mounted a rebellion against the Convention. Without the actions of Bonaparte, this constitutionalist-royalist onslaught leaves the republican defenders decimated, with fatalities including Guillaume Brune, Paul Barras and Joachim Murat. As the existing Convention is forcibly dissolved by the National Guard, existing plans for the reform of state apparatus are banished to the dustbin of history.

October 1795: With the National Convention having been dissolved, it quickly becomes clear that the rightist rebels and National Guard lack the expertise to maintain stability, and - after a brief but intense power struggle - the two largest remaining factions negotiate a compromise, whereby Emmanuel Sieyes - a vocal critic of the 1795 constitution - is invited to act as 'le gardien' until a new constitution can be put into effect. One of his first actions is the successful and rapid negotiation of a cease-fire with Great Britain, in a move which significantly boosts his popularity amongst the French people. To the nascent US Democratic-Republican faction, however, this move is seen as something of a betrayal. Aiming to forge a link with the new French administration, James Monroe - the US Minister Plenipotentiary to France - approaches Sieyes in an attempt to gain transnational support for Jefferson and his allies. Sieyes appears broadly supportive of Monroe's cause but, citing his role as 'le gardien', claims to lack the legitimacy needed to engage in formal negotiations.

November 1795: Under Sieyes' watchful gaze, many enemies of the former regime begin to return to France, and the initial stages of the drafting of a new constitution begins, with the specifics of the proposed French Directorate showing more of a commitment to the ideals of the 1793 constitution (popular sovereignty, liberty, unicameralism, egalitarianism) and the writings of Montesquieu, than to those of the National Convention. Attempts by opponents of the new constitution to destabilise his rule by spreading rumours of foul play, casting 'le gardien' as little more than a British puppet, prove ultimately ineffectual as an increasingly war-weary French populace welcome the prospect of a return to stability.

December 1795: The outcome of the inaugural elections to the French Directorate clearly reflect the sentiments of the country, returning a narrow majority of moderates, constitutionalists, and those on the right; a few royalists; and a mass of squabbling revolutionaries and leftists. The more moderate constitutionalist directuers end up relying on the support of a loose grouping of monarchists to ensure the selection of an executive council that meets with their approval. In return for their support, the new executive (which includes Pichegru and Sieyes) accepts to the condition of dispatching an emissary to 'King' Louis XVIII. Initially attempts to convince him to return to France as constitutional monarch prove fruitless, however, as it rapidly becomes clear that he is unwilling to compromise. Despite this rebuff, morale in the Directorate remains high, as hostilities between the French and British are finally ended with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris by the new French Directorate. In the aftermath of ratification, the Kingdom of Great Britain extends formal recognition to the French Directorate.

February 1796: Following in the footsteps of its future ally, and subtly influenced by the Machiavellian manoeuvring of Jefferson, Washington dispatches a delegation to the new French Directorate to discuss future terms of trade. For Washington and the Federalists this is little more than an attempt to keep France sweet but - without the knowledge of the official delegation - Monroe takes the opportunity to attend a secret meeting with the French executive. Initial negotiations drives a wedge between two factions in the French executive. One group, citing the 1793 constitution, claim that France should attempt to maintain neutrality and isolationism, whilst the other believe that they should offer whatever support they can to Jefferson and his allies in defeating the Jay Treaty and pushing a Francophilic foreign policy agenda. After an animated debate, those in favour of a policy of isolationism manage to secure a majority vote, arguing that the comparatively cash-strapped French Directorate could presumably find better uses for its finances than the funding of foreign politicians. Shortly before the American delegation was to leave, however, Sieyes arranges to talk with Monroe in private. Acting as the spokesperson for a consortium of anonymous politicians and private individuals, he offers a discrete private donation of 15,000F (roughly equivalent to £1.75m / $3m today) to Jefferson's cause; a gift that is readily accepted by Monroe.

February 29, 1796: The Jay Treaty was proclaimed by US Senate. Following the proclamation, members of the US House of Representatives began to debate both the merits of the Jay Treaty, and the question of whether the House actually had the power to refuse to assign the money necessarily for a treaty already ratified by the President and the Senate. This presented the House with an interesting dilemma: 'either the Senate did not have complete power as to treaties, or the House complete power to initiate financial measures, both of which powers had been generally assumed as supreme.' (Charles, J. 1955. 'The Jay Treaty: The Origins of the American Party System' in William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4. p. 600) Basically, Jefferson had to decide whether it was best for his allies 'to defeat the Treaty and destroy the prestige of the House, or to pass the Treaty, vindicate their party ... as moderate and magnanimous, and hope thereby to prevent disaster to Republicanism later.' (Ibid, p. 601) In the run up to the final vote, it becomes apparent that the Federalists have managed to ensure financing of the Jay Treaty, intimidating several Republicans into voting for the appropriation of funding by threatening the refusal of ratifying Pinckney's Treaty with Spain. With the return of Monroe, Jefferson and his allies are able to react to this defeat in secret, investing a significant sum of Sieyes' money in expanding the production and circulation of Republican literature, breaking the Federalist stranglehold on the print media. In this situation, the Republicans are aided in their fight by several highly gifted writers and propagandists, capable of manipulating the print media with hitherto unprecedented success.

March 7, 1796: Following the Federalist success, the Washington administration manages to secure enough support to comfortably ratify Pinckney's Treaty with Spain.

April 1796: Having narrowly succeeded in appropriating funding from the US, the Jay Treaty between Britain and America comes into effect.

May 1796: After weeks of debate, the Directorate agrees to launch a two-pronged offensive against its enemies in Austria and Italy. Forces led by Jourdan, Bernadotte, and Moreau cross the Rhine, whilst Massena and Augereau lead their troops south, intending to focus their energies on the Italian threat.

June 1, 1796: Following a close vote, US Congress approves the admission of Tennessee as sixteenth state of the Union. Meanwhile, in accordance with the Jay Treaty, all British troops are withdrawn from US soil.

-----

Right, I've done enough reading to start having some, uh, interesting ideas. With some of the butterflies I've encountered, I can say that this is definitely going to be fun to write. Time consuming, but fun.

I'm looking forward to thinking through:
- the long-term philosophical impact of a surviving Babeuf :D
- a Jefferson presidency starting in 1796, and getting into a serious mess shortly into the second term
- what's going to happen to the various branches of the French monarchy ('Legitimate' claimants, Bourbons, Orleanists - the whole lot), Louisiana, Hispaniola, Austria, Ireland and Italy
- some realistic divergent political ideologies
- the very tense network of alliances and plots linking England, France and America. One firm tug and the whole thing could come tumbling down. Hmm... :rolleyes:

Any thoughts or comments?


EDIT: It's 5.30am. How the hell did that happen? Stupid Revolutionary History. *goes to sleep*
 
Last edited:
- the long-term philosophical impact of a surviving Babeuf :D
- a Jefferson presidency starting in 1796, and getting into a serious mess shortly into the second term
- what's going to happen to the various branches of the French monarchy ('Legitimate' claimants, Bourbons, Orleanists - the whole lot), Louisiana, Hispaniola, Austria, Ireland and Italy
- some realistic divergent political ideologies
- the very tense network of alliances and plots linking England, France and America. One firm tug and the whole thing could come tumbling down. Hmm... :rolleyes:

Any thoughts or comments?[/I]

EDIT: It's 5.30am. How the hell did that happen? Stupid Revolutionary History. *goes to sleep*


Babeuf : Assuming he doesn't get at least arrested ( it was OTL directoire which had him executed ), he will either try a coup ( in which case he will fail ) or restrict himself to politics. I don't see him getting that much of a following, so he will be writing panphlet and speeches. If the directorate is as corrupt as OTL, he will have things to write about. That will certainly lead to the rise of a socialist doctrine earler than OTL, but it will be restricted to young fireeater student, not -yet- spread through France.

Monarchy : The Orleans are anathema to any royalist. Philippe egalite voted for the death of the King. And he is still alive and the Orlean claimant.

Louisiana : It's still spanish, if I understand the TL correctly.

Hispaniola : The slave republic is still going to be part of France de jure, if not de facto.

Austria and Italy : The directorate has OTL late revolutionary/early imperial armies ( plus loses in Egypt ). Austria will lose wars - and territory - until it learns not to attack france, which shouldn't be long if they are not supported by British money. The territories lost by austria is going to create 'sister' republic, not get annexed to France ( beyond Belgium - which already is - and the west bank of the rhine ) ' The alps , Rhine and pyrenees are the conquests of France ' ( OTL citation )

Alliance network : To counter the US-Uk-France network, I see Austria and Prussia gravitating toward Russia. The Ottomans are in big troubles, as russia want an outlet on the med and Austria want lands to compensate what it lost.

Ireland : I'd say there's still an uprising.

Other points : Barbary coast pirates : a joint french-Uk-US expedition to deal with the problem? Poland : the third partition just occured; butterflies? Spain : will the situation degenerate in a civil war?
 
In order for France to stablelise the Rhine needs to be defended. That was, and still continued to get done, even with Napoleon in Egypt, and should happen without Nappy here. Secondly, if they want lasting peace with Austria they need to get Austria out of Italy. No Venice, no Lombard, no Sicily. No footholds for the Austrian crown in Italy period.

However this means they are going to have to seek their peace with Austria in Italy through other means than exsisting Italian States.
 
I don't know about that. The Directorate are only continuing to attack the remainder of the First Coalition in a 'means justify the ends' kind of way. They're trying to protect the integrity of the French state, and nothing else. As a political unit, they certainly don't have any imperial ambitions *within* Europe. They're only attacking in order to effect an eventual surrender. That said, they will also be aiding native liberal revolutions where they can, so Switzerland will still become the Helvetic Republic.

Of course, the French generals might very well be ignoring the Directorate's orders, and doing their own thing.
Before this the French Revolution had been partially about spreading the revolution. They had done this to Switzerland, the Netherlands, and had starting going into Italy to do the same thing. Now they need to cover their southeastern flank, and this means propping up some Italian Republics of some sort. Everything North of Rome needs to be put in consideration.
 

Faeelin

Banned
I don't know about that. The Directorate are only continuing to attack the remainder of the First Coalition in a 'means justify the ends' kind of way. They're trying to protect the integrity of the French state, and nothing else. As a political unit, they certainly don't have any imperial ambitions *within* Europe. They're only attacking in order to effect an eventual surrender. That .

But the security of the Republic requires France to be surrounded by other Republican states; and why would France refuse to share the flame of liberty with the rest of the world?
 

Faeelin

Banned
The territories lost by austria is going to create 'sister' republic, not get annexed to France ( beyond Belgium - which already is - and the west bank of the rhine ) ' The alps , Rhine and pyrenees are the conquests of France ' ( OTL citation )

I still think that the annexation of the Rhineland isn't guaranteed. Certainly the Rhinelanders preferred to set up a Republican state.

I still don't see the UK alright with the French in Belgium. And Amsterdam.

Spain : will the situation degenerate in a civil war?

Why would Spain degenerate?
 
I still think that the annexation of the Rhineland isn't guaranteed. Certainly the Rhinelanders preferred to set up a Republican state.

France had occupied the left bank of the rhine ( not to be confused whith the Rheinlands ) since early 1795 and the Bale treaty. However, it was not formally annexed before 1798 OTL. Therefore, I think it very likely ITTL, but not guarenteed ITTL.

I still don't see the UK alright with the French in Belgium. And Amsterdam.
Not Amsterdam, but Belgium. OTL, it was formally annexed to France, prior to the PoD, IIRC. This was recognised by Uk OTL. The Netherlands ( which didn't include Maastricht then ) was set as a sister republic ( since 1795 ).


Why would Spain degenerate?

Civil war between charles and ferdinand
 
Top