Alliance between America and France

[tallwingedgoat]

What if as condition of military and economic assistance, America had to ally with France post independence? What impact would this have on Europe in the period of the French Revolution?

 

[Falastur]

On Europe? Uhh...not much really. The US has no real capacity to influence the wars in Europe. In truth, this alliance is just like hanging a big "kick me" sign on the USA designed to provoke England. And no, I don't mean England will reconquer the colonies, because that's impractical. But it will give them a series of bloody noses and make them wish they'd chosen the sensible option of staying out of European politics.

On the other side of things, I think the French of this era would be insulted at the suggestion that they needed the US' help for anything, especially fighting on their own turf. The US existed at their pleasure, not any other way around.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

On the other side of things, I think the French of this era would be insulted at the suggestion that they needed the US' help for anything, especially fighting on their own turf. The US existed at their pleasure, not any other way around.

But France was quite upset with American neutrality. Their investment didn't pay off as much as they liked.

Early on in the French Revolution many Americans, especially Jefferson, greeted the revolution with great enthusiasm. So certainly the Royalists wouldn't be getting much sympathies, but the French Republic would welcome any allies it can get.

 

[danwild6]

I suppose the US could just stay an ally of France. Have greater Franco-American cooperation in the seizure of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Canada or maybe have France hand over captured British Caribbean possessions in exchange for the US getting additional North American territory. The US getting Canada butterflies away Britain maintaining control of Detroit and other frontier posts and thus butterflies the only real success of John Jay's treaty. Thus the XYZ affair and the Quasi-War are butterflied away. Britain and the US remain at loggerheads on the rights of neutrals and the rights of US nationals. Quite possibly leading to war around 1796 or so.

 

[danwild6]

But France was quite upset with American neutrality. Their investment didn't pay off as much as they liked.

Early on in the French Revolution many Americans, especially Jefferson, greeted the revolution with great enthusiasm. So certainly the Royalists wouldn't be getting much sympathies, but the French Republic would welcome any allies it can get.

Actually France approved of American neutrality at first it allowed the US to supply French Caribbean possessions with minimal interference from the Royal Navy it also mad it possible for the US to pay off its debt in a much better way for both France and America, with food and not hard specie. I have to wonder if Louis XVI had seen this he might not have lost his head.

 

[wolf_brother]

Perhaps avoid the XYZ Affair and the Quasi War, followed by an analogue to the Essex Case come a few years earlier. You might see the US declaring war on Britain, invading Canada, and joining France in the War of the Second Coalition.

EDIT: No commentary here on how effective the Americans would be, or the greater butterflies, but it was a thought.

 

[Falastur]

But France was quite upset with American neutrality. Their investment didn't pay off as much as they liked.

Yes, because the French wanted a US republic which would fall into their political orbit. They didn't want a military alliance, certainly not one where the Americans assisted them in Europe - which is what I understood that your OP specified, or at least implied - but a French-speaking, French-leaning republic which sent all of its imports to Paris instead of London, based its political decisions on what its Parisian paymasters thought was right and would serve as hired muscle for any wars in the Americas. Now, the French-speaking was never going to happen, but the other bits all could have, and that's what they wanted the USA to be - a French puppet in perpetuity. Considering that no-one could have predicted the USA's rise to power, the idea that the fledgling republic could have fallen into the French orbit and never been powerful enough to escape was probably a real fear of the British at the time, especially when you consider that the French most likely planned to (eventually) fully colonise the Louisiana Territory and to reclaim Quebec rather than give them to their American satellite state, regardless of how much this upset the Americans.

But my point was, you wouldn't see American troops fighting in Europe for the French. Not for a century or more, anyway. When the Revolution came about, even if the USA didn't use it as a convenient excuse to go off the radar rather than assist, the most you'd be likely to see is American troops fighting for one side or the other (depending on whether they consider political ideology or legally-binding agreements to carry the most weight, so probably for the French republic) to secure the American colonies for their Parisian overlords, then seeking recompense for their efforts in the form of land transfer.

 

[Faeelin]

On Europe? Uhh...not much really. The US has no real capacity to influence the wars in Europe. In truth, this alliance is just like hanging a big "kick me" sign on the USA designed to provoke England. And no, I don't mean England will reconquer the colonies, because that's impractical. But it will give them a series of bloody noses and make them wish they'd chosen the sensible option of staying out of European politics.
.

On the other hand, the loss of the american market, combined with the closure of Europe's markets under Napoleon, caused a major economic crisis in Britain. It could have ended very, very poorly.