Franco-American relations if French Revolution produces Constitutional Monarchy?

Assume the following: The French Revolution produces a Constitutional Monarchy under King Louis and that the French Revolutionary Wars still start more or less on schedule.

Since America declared its neutrality in spite of its alliance with France in no small part because the treaty was with the now-dead King Louis, would his continued reign make much of a difference, diplomatically?

Another reason the US stayed neutral was because its alliance with France was defensive, and it was France that declared war first. So, what if its enemies declared war on France first, allowing the French ambassador to America (likely not Genet?) to reasonably point out that this would most certainly fall under the defensive alliance?
 
The revolution provided a convenient excuse. The reality was that the alliance was defensive, as you point out, and that the U.S. was ill-equipped for any serious military commitment.
 
The revolution provided a convenient excuse. The reality was that the alliance was defensive, as you point out, and that the U.S. was ill-equipped for any serious military commitment.

And if France was attacked, and asked for America to come to its aid?
 
Assume the following: The French Revolution produces a Constitutional Monarchy under King Louis and that the French Revolutionary Wars still start more or less on schedule.

Since America declared its neutrality in spite of its alliance with France in no small part because the treaty was with the now-dead King Louis, would his continued reign make much of a difference, diplomatically?

Another reason the US stayed neutral was because its alliance with France was defensive, and it was France that declared war first. So, what if its enemies declared war on France first, allowing the French ambassador to America (likely not Genet?) to reasonably point out that this would most certainly fall under the defensive alliance?
For getting something like an half-stable French constitutional monarchy you need to have a successful flight of Louis XVI and his family AND France replacing him with Philippe Egalite as King. He was the only member of the royal family who would rule as Constitutional King without troubles (and really for what reason Louis XVI must accept that? He was forced to accept something who was against all his beliefs, kept prisoner and scared for his life and the ones of his family and forced to accept to be used as puppet by a mass of rebels who wanted destroy him).
 
This is one of those threads without an easy answer. A French constitutional monarchy instead of the Revolution changes so many things in French foreign policy that more details would be needed to address the situation adequately.
 
This is one of those threads without an easy answer. A French constitutional monarchy instead of the Revolution changes so many things in French foreign policy that more details would be needed to address the situation adequately.
What variables do you think change the result the most?

If we assume a Constitutional Monarchy, thus preserving the formality of the alliance, and France being attacked, preserving the purpose, what would impact the US reaction?
 
If Louis XVI accepted to only be a constitutional King and is not influenced by his wife or his very royalist entourage. He will never pressed the declaration of war against Austria. Of course, I don't know if he was influenced or if he grow a spine because he was fed up with the end of Louis XIV heritage.

He will quietly stay in the Tuileries signing the laws and the reforms of the Assemblee Nationale and be able to continue his quiet life.

Without the Terror and the Revolutionnary Wars, the French Revolution was very successfull in its very good reforms.
 
What variables do you think change the result the most?

If we assume a Constitutional Monarchy, thus preserving the formality of the alliance, and France being attacked, preserving the purpose, what would impact the US reaction?
If France makes a stable transition to constitutional monarchy by 1792, then the French Revolutionary Wars are butterflied away, and that changes so much.
 
The US basically used France for assistance in gaining independence, and then angled straight back to resuming a relationship with Britain as soon as possible. There was nothing in it for the USA to get involved in French affairs, so they'll use every and any excuse to renege on any alliance. If you want the USA involved, put something tangible on the table as a reward. Or alternatively, have Britain present a threat to USA, where the US needs France again.
 
And if a war is declared, everything will happend as in OTL.

Prussia, after its defeat at Valmy, will quickly go home to digest Poland and once the Austrian Netherlands is lost, Austria will seek peace with France as Prussia and Russia are the naturals ennemies of Austria and not France, except for Belgium.

But loosing the Austrian Netherlands in exchange of a free hand in Italy is worth this province that should be French since Louis XV victories.

The USA were a dwarf on the military and political sphere and the UK was an economical partner and not an ennemy. And between the Quebecqois Catholics and the Ontario Loyalists, everybody will be hostile in Canada to American troops.
 
If France makes a stable transition to constitutional monarchy by 1792, then the French Revolutionary Wars are butterflied away, and that changes so much.
If levee en masse is butterflied or pushed back significantly, do your think that the 19th century would end up being similar to the 18th with major European wars every 20-40 years, or might some other factor like advancements in military technology lead to a slowing down of wars like OTL?
 
If France makes a stable transition to constitutional monarchy by 1792, then the French Revolutionary Wars are butterflied away, and that changes so much.

Who said anything about stable? France could still end up in a major war with other European powers as a Constitutional Monarchy. Perhaps France's instability is inviting enough to encourage other states to attack. Of course, Prussia and Austria would likely be interested in 'restoring the rightful prerogatives of the French crown' or some such excuse.

The USA were a dwarf on the military and political sphere and the UK was an economical partner and not an ennemy. And between the Quebecqois Catholics and the Ontario Loyalists, everybody will be hostile in Canada to American troops.

All of that is pretty much just as true in 1812, yet they still engaged in war.
 
If levee en masse is butterflied or pushed back significantly, do your think that the 19th century would end up being similar to the 18th with major European wars every 20-40 years, or might some other factor like advancements in military technology lead to a slowing down of wars like OTL?
At first, there would be the same big war every sl often trend, but that would change with time.
Who said anything about stable? France could still end up in a major war with other European powers as a Constitutional Monarchy. Perhaps France's instability is inviting enough to encourage other states to attack. Of course, Prussia and Austria would likely be interested in 'restoring the rightful prerogatives of the French crown' or some such excuse.
There's no better way to stabilize a king's place on his throne than to invade his country.
 
There's no better way to stabilize a king's place on his throne than to invade his country.
Quite likely - unless it marginalizes the king because portions of the government think he's sympathetic to the invaders, but not enough to depose him.

Another issue is that we've been assuming that Great Britain would be part of this war, but perhaps it is only France v the Continental powers.
 
Quite likely - unless it marginalizes the king because portions of the government think he's sympathetic to the invaders, but not enough to depose him.

Another issue is that we've been assuming that Great Britain would be part of this war, but perhaps it is only France v the Continental powers.
I was being sarcastic. The first war I see as potentially likely, which could involve the U.S., would be for Spain to still have a contested succession early in the nineteenth century, and France choosing one side, possibly with another power on the other.
 
Quite likely - unless it marginalizes the king because portions of the government think he's sympathetic to the invaders, but not enough to depose him.

Another issue is that we've been assuming that Great Britain would be part of this war, but perhaps it is only France v the Continental powers.
If France is at war with Austria, it will ultimately be at war with Great Britain as well, because it will invade the Austrian Netherlands and that is the trigger for the British to go to war.
 
Who said anything about stable? France could still end up in a major war with other European powers as a Constitutional Monarchy. Perhaps France's instability is inviting enough to encourage other states to attack. Of course, Prussia and Austria would likely be interested in 'restoring the rightful prerogatives of the French crown' or some such excuse.

All of that is pretty much just as true in 1812, yet they still engaged in war.

Washington being in power, he will avoid any wars. He fought many wars and knew that war is a terrible thing. I'm not a specialist of Georges Washington but I watched two mini TV series from the 80's about Washington life and the one about his time as a President showed clearly that the USA had enough to do with building a country and fighting Amerindians than being involved directly in European affairs.

The War of 1812 was fought 29 years after the end of the War of Independance. A new generation of men was in power. They wanted a war, they fough it, they loose it.

Constitutional Monarchy in France is built in 1790 and 1791, OTL it was badly built and not stable and it failed.

To survive with Louis XVI in power, you need a POD so the Constitutionnal Monarchy survived. It must be stable or it will not survived.

Only Austria and the UK fought really against France during the Revolutionnary Wars. Most countries fought at the beginning then negotiated a separate peace as Spain or Prussia. Or as Russia who engaged in the wars very late, Russia had to deal with Poland first.

Louis XVI in power in a functionning system, mean that fewer French officers choose the exile and French army is better in the few months of war, so no need of a Terror and a Mobilisation en Masse.
 
Top