well, being one of those despised Americans, I tend to regard the events that expanded the nation as positive.... granted, it sucked for the natives, but between disease and burgeoning white populations, someone was bound to dispossess them of their lands....stevep said:
AH Challenge: Louisiana War of 1804
- Thread starter MacCaulay
- Start date
MacCaulay
Banned
Dave: It's not pleasant to agree with anyone on that point, but it's true. I guess it's almot more pleasant to think about the westward expansion of the nation in elementary-school terms. It makes it easier to take.
stevep and ranoncles: Are we assuming, then, that the British would actively engage French ships headed for Louisiana?
Here's the strategic situation I'm working under: the United States of America at war with France, who is at war with Britain, who is not allied with the United States.
Confusing to be sure, and the situation on the Atlantic would just get more confusing. What does an American ship do if it happens upon a battle between British and French ships-of-the-line? Wish them well and go on it's merry way, or wade right in and start walloping the French?
stevep and ranoncles: Are we assuming, then, that the British would actively engage French ships headed for Louisiana?
Here's the strategic situation I'm working under: the United States of America at war with France, who is at war with Britain, who is not allied with the United States.
Confusing to be sure, and the situation on the Atlantic would just get more confusing. What does an American ship do if it happens upon a battle between British and French ships-of-the-line? Wish them well and go on it's merry way, or wade right in and start walloping the French?
MacCaulay said:
Probably wait around to see who won...if the Brits congratulate them on a well deserved victory, if French finish 'em off. (And if possible take both hulls as prize
)MacCaulay said:
It would seem to make the most sense to me. Now if the Americans and the British were allied then yeah they would come to their side, but if not...let them do the dirty work and pick up a cheap victory against a much weakened foe if they fail.
MacCaulay said:
I would expect so. RN policy was to actively hunt out and destroy French and other hostile forces. Both good strategy and PRIZE MONEY!
. Also, given communications of the time and the value of the various Caribbean colonies the RN ships would not necessarily know where the French were heading. And if their actually at war their not going to ask, nor accept a "We're only planning to attack the Americans".Steve
Dave Howery said:
Why despised? [Unless you mean that you today agree morally with the attitudes at the time]. There was a lot of brutality and atrocities in most parts of the world then, still is in far too many places. The US had a very bad record with its native population but some places were as bad or possibly worse. I was just making the point that while that outcome of the war was good for the Americans it wasn't for others.
Steve
MacCaulay
Banned
Steve: Good way of explaining that. I don't think native populations anywhere have generally had good experiences with conquering powers. That's why they're "conquering powers."
My version of the end of the war, in a nutshell: The US Mediterranean fleet could bombard the French coast, drawing the French fleet (rickety though it was) back to defend their coast. When the French fleet tries to sail out of the Gulf of Mexico, the American Navy hits them around Bermuda, then lets the Royal Navy and the returning ships of the Med Squadron pick them off as they try and get back to France to defend against an enemy that is no longer there.
The French Army of Louisiana, after six months of valiant fighting in the bayous of Louisiana and the forests of what would become Arkansas and Mississippi, surrenders after General Zebulon Pike defeats their offensive force at the Battle of Mobile Bay and General Andrew Jackson defeats the relief force at the Battle of New Orleans.
Col. George Rogers Clark moves his force to the 47th Parallel bordering Canada after a spectacular crossing of the Mississippi at what would be Rock Island, Illinois.
The Treaty of Vienna gives control off all French territory that the US offered to buy two years before, and the US Army presence on other side of the river promises a more orderly settlement of the northern Louisiana Territory.
Thoughts?
My version of the end of the war, in a nutshell: The US Mediterranean fleet could bombard the French coast, drawing the French fleet (rickety though it was) back to defend their coast. When the French fleet tries to sail out of the Gulf of Mexico, the American Navy hits them around Bermuda, then lets the Royal Navy and the returning ships of the Med Squadron pick them off as they try and get back to France to defend against an enemy that is no longer there.
The French Army of Louisiana, after six months of valiant fighting in the bayous of Louisiana and the forests of what would become Arkansas and Mississippi, surrenders after General Zebulon Pike defeats their offensive force at the Battle of Mobile Bay and General Andrew Jackson defeats the relief force at the Battle of New Orleans.
Col. George Rogers Clark moves his force to the 47th Parallel bordering Canada after a spectacular crossing of the Mississippi at what would be Rock Island, Illinois.
The Treaty of Vienna gives control off all French territory that the US offered to buy two years before, and the US Army presence on other side of the river promises a more orderly settlement of the northern Louisiana Territory.
Thoughts?
Wendell said:
Not as much as grew on Martinique and the reason Britain took Tobago was simply to restore what they had lost previously.
I’m not sure why they took St Lucia instead of any of the other islands, but they could have taken far more if they liked.
It’s academic either way, the only way the Americans could take a Caribbean island is if the Royal Navy was keeping the French busy, in which case the British could take the islands themselves.
They aren’t going to be selling Canada to get some Islands they didn’t want in the first place and if they did want them they would take them.
MacCaulay said:
It may have been rickety but it would crucify the US fleet and the commitment needed to do so wouldn’t have been a blip compared with France’s other commitments.
In 1801 the US Med squadron comprised the following ships, USS President (55 gun Frigate), USS Essex ( 46 gun frigate), USS Philadelphia (36 gun frigate) and USS Enterprise (12 gun schooner).
In 1803 USS Constitution ( 54 gun frigate) joined the Squadron.
Back in the US the Americans have about a dozen ships, 4 of them the heavier frigates and the rest lighter frigates or weaker.
And finds that the French have ships of the line unlike them, they either get sunk or they run away.
Because it's on the bottom of the Med.
The French will already have those positions and assuming the force in Haiti somehow avoids dying out because of Yellow fever (which seems to be necessary to get this war off the ground) they will have somewhere in the region of 20-40,000 troops available.
The Americans couldn't beat the initial 6,000 British regulars along a border which was much more settled and where they could draw upon militia.
I don't fancy their chances against 20,000-40,000 French dug in 300 miles from eth nearest US fort and 500 miles from the nearest settled area.
I think you are over estimating the US by a large margin, the French will have problems because of their supply lines and it is that which will eventually force them to surrender (assuming there isn’t enough food locally available) not US action.
I agree with Darkling, not to mention the role of the spanish colonies in the area. You have two possibilities for them: they support the french hoping for help in their independence from Spain (that means supplies and more troops for the french) or they remain neutral (I do not think they would fight them).
MacCaulay
Banned
Darkling: Thanks. You're providing basically the information I was looking for. So the main disagreement I'm getting here is that the war would probably last longer?
Just to reiterate the POD: French forces manage to put down the rebellion in Haiti without an enourmous loss of manpower due to disease. Their standing orders were to land at New Orleans after that. So the French Army in Lousiana would be the army that 'won' in Haiti, minus combat casualties.
Just to reiterate the POD: French forces manage to put down the rebellion in Haiti without an enourmous loss of manpower due to disease. Their standing orders were to land at New Orleans after that. So the French Army in Lousiana would be the army that 'won' in Haiti, minus combat casualties.
MacCaulay said:
MacCaulay
I think so. If I understand correctly the US is attacking, which is going to be at long range so to speak. If they have control of the sea - i.e. some link with Britain or the RN has at least smashed the French fleet - then they can come by boat. Otherwise they have a long way to go and quite possibly have to fight their way through the Creeks and other southern Indians 1st. Ditto for the French if they try attacking.
Not sure how the French regulars would have faired in the rough terrain. Nor sure what the population of Louisiana at the time and hence how much the area could support.
If Britain is neutral then I doubt the US will attack but if they did once Nappy hears about it he could send sizeable forces, land and naval, to support them. This could include raids on US coastal settlements to divert attention.
[Just thought of a nasty possibility, although its highly unlikely I think? The earlier French republic had banned slavery I think and Napoleon was sending troops to Haiti to restore French rule and slavery? What if Napoleon decides to continue the ban on slavery? Some agreement with the rebels on Haiti, whereby they accept a loose French protectorate. This not only means minimal French losses and delay in reaching New Orleans. Possibly more importantly this France has a policy of rejecting slavery. If they and the US goes to war you could have French raiding forces encouraging slaves to rebel. Could get to be a very nasty conflict].
Steve
1804 is a bad year for this-- past the 1798 Silliness, and to early to pull a [Texas] on the Territory.
So unless whe are going for a naked land Grab,--------------
ie- Just send the troops into NO, and tell the population that they are now Americans.
[Given British Control of the Atlantic, not much France can do about it]
---------------- then whe need a flash point.
In 1802 the US signed a trety with Sicily allowing the Med Fleet to winter over in Malta.
In the Winter of 1804 that is where the Mederterian Squadron was, when the British Fleet Arrived. Napolean having Deposed the King of Sicily and put his brother Joesph on the Throne.
POD
Admiral ??? takes the French Fleet into Malta, hoping to catch the British at Anchor . Due to a Failure in French Intelligence, the American presence is overlooked.
During the subiquencent Battle American Ships are fired upon, and return Fire, the Franco-American War of 1804 is underway. [Now whe send the Troops to the Big O.]
So unless whe are going for a naked land Grab,--------------
ie- Just send the troops into NO, and tell the population that they are now Americans.
[Given British Control of the Atlantic, not much France can do about it]
---------------- then whe need a flash point.
In 1802 the US signed a trety with Sicily allowing the Med Fleet to winter over in Malta.
In the Winter of 1804 that is where the Mederterian Squadron was, when the British Fleet Arrived. Napolean having Deposed the King of Sicily and put his brother Joesph on the Throne.
POD
Admiral ??? takes the French Fleet into Malta, hoping to catch the British at Anchor . Due to a Failure in French Intelligence, the American presence is overlooked.
During the subiquencent Battle American Ships are fired upon, and return Fire, the Franco-American War of 1804 is underway. [Now whe send the Troops to the Big O.]
MacCaulay said:
He has a chance of holding the area, or at least the settled delta region, provided he can re-supply the region. I don't think this is possible if France is at war with Britain as his supply lines then become hopeless. While Napoleon was often careless with the lives of his soldiers I don't think, especially after Egypt, he would leave an army in a hopeless situation. [Unless it was something like he hoped to lure enough of the British fleet to the region so he could try a strike against Britain. Or if he was really macky he could hope that Britain would seize the region and get entangled in conflict with the US, although that is a very long shot].
As such I think the scenario is only really viable if the French and British stay at peace, at least for a year or so while this battle is decided. If so it depends on how much the French think they can commit to a battle on the other side of the Atlantic. The Americans can put up very stiff resistance but if France goes flat out they can take just about anywhere they wish in the US. Holding it would be another matter, especially since sooner or later they will be at war with Britain again. Alternatively they could have more limited aims, securing the Mississippi region and possibly helping various Indian tribes to set up a buffer between them and American expansion westwards. Possibly coupled with large scale French settlement in the area, including say veterans? it could make for an interesting scenario.
Steve
MacCaulay
Banned
Steve: I was thinking about those political problems when I came up with the first timeline: I realized that if the Americans were to make a few early victories and then stop to offer terms while the French were still fighting the British, then the Napoleon might decide it would be worth it to decamp his force for some British post that would do more damage to his immediate enemy, and take a reduced sum for the Territory from the Americans.
It seems that the French government's main hope would be that at some point early in the campaign, the Americans fall flat on their face, and decide to act like it never happened.
Thoughts?
It seems that the French government's main hope would be that at some point early in the campaign, the Americans fall flat on their face, and decide to act like it never happened.
Thoughts?