AHC: Get the US involved in a large scale European war before WW1

The US spent the 19th century trying to avoid such but can you think of a semi-realistic scenario that could have brought the US into one of Europe's conflicts?

Perhaps a US that had a more Atlantic focused view vs a Pacific one.
 
The US was fighting an undeclared naval war against revolutionary France during the War of the Second Coalition. I don't think it would have been impossible for Britain to persuade the US to join the coalition if Britain thought American assistance would be valuable enough.

The big sticking points I'm aware of that stopped the Quasi-War from turning hot IOTL were:
  • Washington (who had come out of retirement to lead the army raised in case the war needed to be prosecuted on land by invading Florida) appointed Hamilton as his executive officer (and de facto day-to-day commander). Adams deeply distrusted and disliked Hamilton and feared Hamilton attempting a coup. Taking the army away from Hamilton was part of Adams's motivation for negotiating a settlement and disbanding the army.
  • Popular resentment towards Britain over the terms of the Jay Treaty a few years previously made aligning with Britain against France politically problematic.
  • The War of the Second Coalition didn't really get rolling until late in the Quasi-War, so America and France were already negotiating a settlement by the time Britain had a real incentive to go ally shopping.
The former is easy to avoid: have Washington appoint someone else instead of Hamilton for some reason, or have Washington decline the command for health reasons allowing Adams to appoint another commander.

The second can be fixed if Britain were to see an American alliance as valuable enough to be worth revising the Jay Treaty. Maybe if the war went somewhat worse for the Coalition, and if the construction of the original six frigates of the US Navy had hit fewer delays so the US would have had more to bring to the table as a potential ally.

The last can probably be arranged as well. Perhaps if Napoleon launched some campaign on the continent instead of the Egyptian campaign.
 
Napoleon makes peace during the War of the 6th Coalition and helps the US during the war of 1812. Then the US and France become close allies and once France gets embroiled into another war in Europe against the Coalition, the US feels obligated to help by invading Canada and maybe even sending a legion to France?
 
One idea I've kicked around is Napoleon, instead of instituting the disastrous Continental System, instead starts sending staffs of French officers to Britain's enemies in colonial theatres to train them in the new drill manner. Try to get a larger cadre of US officers the means to drill their men like Winfield Scott did for the Battle of Chippewa to make them more effective.
 
After about 1850 or so, the US would be forced to get involved if another European power tried to seize Cuba or any other strategic Spanish territories as part of a larger war.
 
does not the OTL war of 1812 meet the challenge

The standard reply is that the US and France were "cobelligerents not allies." https://books.google.com/books?id=vXzONbJ1tNsC&pg=PR12 Or as another author puts it:

"Despite a common enemy, the United States and France were not allies, nor did they coordinate war plans. Madison feared becoming another French satellite and being compelled to acquiesce in the transfer of Canada to a victorious France.143 The American invasion of Canada was not just the only way to strike at Britain, but also reflected the desire to rid North America of European interference and thus assure the United States future security." https://books.google.com/books?id=tO-QAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA81

There actually was a proposition in the House to declare war on France as well as Great Britain! It only got ten votes, however. Jefferson called it "a solecism worthy of Don Quixote only..." https://books.google.com/books?id=E_5sgeh0NzkC&pg=PA179
 
US opinion in the Franco-Prussian War was generally pro-Prussia; Bismarck's desire to unite Germany was received sympathetically by a nation that had undergone its own war for national unity a few years earlier, and remembered France's far from friendly role in that struggle. George Bancroft (US minister in Berlin) wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish:

"Our foreign political interests almost always run parallel with those of Germany, and are often in direct conflict with those of France. Bismarck and the King were true to our union during our Civil War--when France took sides against us, Germany respected the independence of Mexico; the French supported the Austrian adventurer. Bismarck loves to give the United States prominence in the eyes of Europe as a balance to Great Britain. If we need the solid, trusty good will of any government in Europe, we can have it best with Germany; because German institutions and ours most nearly resemble each other, and because so many millions of Germans have become our countrymen. This war will leave Germany the most powerful state in Europe, and the most free; its friendship, is, therefore, most important to us ; and has its foundations in history and in nature. The more I learn of the present condition of France, the more deeply does the country seem to have been injured by the corrupting, wasteful and immoral government of Louis Napoleon."

But AFAIK nobody in the US advocated actual US intervention in the war.
 
Ironically, the best way to do this is probably not to make the U.S stronger and more outward looking, but less powerful and able to prevent European political and economic interests from meddling in South America during the 1800's. If the major European powers are going around making a habit of extracting financial concessions, sending in long-term military and/or political interventions, backing different sides in proxy wars/civil wars ect. throughout the continent (Not just the occasional jaunt into the Caribbean to browbeat protection money out of tiny island nations), than once the US gets into a stronger stride and trying to build up her own international interests/sphere of influence she'll be sticking her nose into the established interests of said powers. This would create the conditions nessicery for political tensions, low scale political crisises, ect. that would make getting involved in a war mainly based in European events more palitable.
 
Does the Civil War expanding count? Like if the Laird Rams put France, the Confederacy, and Britain at war with the U.S. and then Russia starts things up again in the Balkans while they’re distracted. The U.S. and Russia of course make common cause and you have a European War with the U.S. as a party.
 
If the US is "weak" then you won't see much desire for the US to get involved as they are likely to get trampled. If they are as strong as OTL, nobody is going to try and cross the Atlantic to attack them so it becomes a war of choice. In 1870 the USA might root for the Prussians, however if they are losing the USA is not going to go to war with France. After 1870, the only wars basically in Europe (Boer War is a "colonial" war) are those in the Balkans and the US desire to be involved there makes Bismarck's comment look like an endorsement for involvement. When you have a European issue in the western hemisphere, like Germany/Venezuela, that could involve the USA with a European Power - a western hemisphere issue was what got the US and Spain in to a fight. Any truly European conflict, not really involving the western hemisphere, the USA simply isn't going to get involved unless they have a formal alliance - which requires a POD way back.

As it was Germany had to work pretty hard to get the USA to declare war, if they had not resumed unrestricted submarine war in 1917 even as much as the USA was leaning towards the Entente it was that last step that they would not have been taking. Loans, volunteers, good wishes OK, US boys bleeding in Europe - not without a major reason.

The Atlantic and Pacific "moats" allowed the USA until well in to the 20th century to take a hands off attitude towards truly European conflicts.
 
Top