Anglo-American War (1794)

What if the British made unreasonable demands during the negotiation of the Jay Treaty and America was forced to go to war with England? This is very different from 1812 - the British still de facto control the Northwest with multiple forts, but much of the veteran commanders and troops from the first Revolution are still alive.

If the war lasts until 1796 would Washington run for a third term? Or become the Commander of American forces once again?
 
The likely-hood of American declaring war on England during this period of time is very low. You would need a much larger Jeffersonian influence in the public and government to even consider it. Washington's wouldn't authorize a war to be waged either.
 
The likely-hood of American declaring war on England during this period of time is very low. You would need a much larger Jeffersonian influence in the public and government to even consider it. Washington's wouldn't authorize a war to be waged either.
Unless the British made it necessary by asking for something in the Jay Treaty talks. I'm having déjà vu here of another recent thread.
 
Unless the British made it necessary by asking for something in the Jay Treaty talks.
They did ask for "most favored nation" and the payment of pre-war private debts to British merchants and they got that. What do you think they could ask for that would demand war?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Americans were able to thread the needle between

What if the British made unreasonable demands during the negotiation of the Jay Treaty and America was forced to go to war with England? This is very different from 1812 - the British still de facto control the Northwest with multiple forts, but much of the veteran commanders and troops from the first Revolution are still alive.

If the war lasts until 1796 would Washington run for a third term? Or become the Commander of American forces once again?

The Americans were able to thread the needle between Britain and France fairly neatly from the 1790s to 1812; and for their part, the British and French saw no return in antagonizing the Americans when they both had much more pressing matters closer to home.

Now, yes, stranger things have happened (cf Germany in the Twentieth Century) but generally the great powers have managed to avoid random warfare for the hell of it...andf the Americans were well aware of what little they could gain and how much would be risked by a second go-round a decade or so after the last one ended.

Best,
 
Historians on the historical treaty

"It postponed war with England until America was economically and politically more capable of fighting one." (Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, 137-137)

"the treaty effectively postponed war with Britain, or at least postponed it until the United States was strong enough to handle it." (Marshall Smelser, The Democratic Republic, 1801–1815)

"it was a substantial success, which included the prevention of war with Great Britain." (Elkins and McKitrick. The Age of Federalism. p. 412.)

Historians find it highly likely. Let us discuss if it happened and not waste another 6 pages debating the plausibility of the point of divergence.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The French are fighting the First Coalition; the British

"It postponed war with England until America was economically and politically more capable of fighting one." (Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, 137-137)

"the treaty effectively postponed war with Britain, or at least postponed it until the United States was strong enough to handle it." (Marshall Smelser, The Democratic Republic, 1801–1815)

"it was a substantial success, which included the prevention of war with Great Britain." (Elkins and McKitrick. The Age of Federalism. p. 412.)

Historians find it highly likely. Let us discuss if it happened and not waste another 6 pages debating the plausibility of the point of divergence.

The French are fighting the First Coalition; the British are bankrolling it.

The French and British navies are both still capable of fighting it out at sea (Glorious First of June) and engaging in expeditionary warfare in the Caribbean; the French are holding off the Coalition in Italy and winning in Spain and the Low Countries. The British do not have a lot of troops or shipping to spare.

The US Navy is still building the first six frigates, so whatever warships can be commissioned are goinng to be merchantment to start; the army is minimal, but historically, the federal government (six years since the ratification of the Constitution, so there's a strong executive); population (1790 census) is 3.9 million; along with Washington, VP is Adams, State is Randolph, Treasury/Hamilton, War/Knox/Pickering, AG Bradford.

Population of BNA is ~190,000.

If the goal is simply to get the British to withdraw to BNA from the Old Northwest, given everything else on their plate, presumably the odds are in the favor of the Americans. Invading BNA is a different issue, but certainly the US is in a better strategic position in 1794 then in 1775.

Best,
 
The French are fighting the First Coalition; the British are bankrolling it.

The French and British navies are both still capable of fighting it out at sea (Glorious First of June) and engaging in expeditionary warfare in the Caribbean; the French are holding off the Coalition in Italy and winning in Spain and the Low Countries. The British do not have a lot of troops or shipping to spare.
Did they have an especially larger group of people to share in 1812 v 1794? IIRC it was colonial troops that forged a path to Washington D.C. (and ate the President's dinner :D).
The US Navy is still building the first six frigates, so whatever warships can be commissioned are goinng to be merchantment to start; the army is minimal, but historically, the federal government (six years since the ratification of the Constitution, so there's a strong executive); population (1790 census) is 3.9 million; along with Washington, VP is Adams, State is Randolph, Treasury/Hamilton, War/Knox/Pickering, AG Bradford.

Population of BNA is ~190,000.
I don't foresee the US Navy doing any sort of damage to the British at the sea - they have a very high caliber of ship commanders and ships. That said, a fun little vignette would be to have Andrew Jackson taking down one of their ships by ramming them and dying in the process. Then he can go to Davy Jone's locker where he belongs. :mad:
If the goal is simply to get the British to withdraw to BNA from the Old Northwest, given everything else on their plate, presumably the odds are in the favor of the Americans. Invading BNA is a different issue, but certainly the US is in a better strategic position in 1794 then in 1775.
There's no particular "goal" per se, rather just to come up with an interesting story.

Is America even stable enough for this to happen? Or will they collapse.

As far as commanders go, I can see Washington, Hamilton, and Aaron Burr being the Big Three (although I'm probably forgetting some people). How ironic would it be for Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr to be working together directing the U.S. army?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No, the British troops in the Chesapeake were all regulars

Did they have an especially larger group of people to share in 1812 v 1794? IIRC it was colonial troops that forged a path to Washington D.C. (and ate the President's dinner :D).

I don't foresee the US Navy doing any sort of damage to the British at the sea - they have a very high caliber of ship commanders and ships. That said, a fun little vignette would be to have Andrew Jackson taking down one of their ships by ramming them and dying in the process. Then he can go to Davy Jone's locker where he belongs. :mad:

There's no particular "goal" per se, rather just to come up with an interesting story.

Is America even stable enough for this to happen? Or will they collapse.

As far as commanders go, I can see Washington, Hamilton, and Aaron Burr being the Big Three (although I'm probably forgetting some people). How ironic would it be for Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr to be working together directing the U.S. army?

No, the British troops in the Chesapeake in 1814 were all regulars; they were defeated and lost their major general at North Point, Hampstead Hill, Fort McHenry, and Ferry Branch by a mixed force of regulars and Maryland militia, under (among others) some revolutionary war veterans as general officers.

The Continental Navy took on the best the British had in 1775-83 and held their own; absolutely no reason they would not do well at commerce raiding and ship to shop actions, especially when with the French in active alliance, they have the opportunity to replenish in the French west indian and atlantic ports, and vice versa.

Washington would remain as president; if Pickering takes over as secretary of war, then the following veterans (all Continental Army and who served at Yorktown, in commands ranging from battalion to division) would be available:

Hamilton, Knox, Lincoln, Carrington, Lamb, Muhlenberg, Hazen, Clinton, Van Cortlandt, Dayton, Olney, Wayne, Stewart.

Hamilton and Lincoln could each have led an independent command (army?), as could have Knox; the remaining ten certainly could have handled a brigade or division of the time. There were others who didn't make it to Yorktown, historically, but who were capable and still active in the 1790s - Daniel Morgan, for example. It is worth noting your depature point comes the same year as Fallen Timbers, which suggests the capabilities of the regulars on the northwestern frontier; Wayne had organized the Legion in 1793, after all.



Greene, unfortunately, had died in 1786.

The US didn't collapse historically; no idea why you would think it was a possibility in the 1790s.

Best,
 
Last edited:
The Continental Navy took on the best the British had in 1775-83 and held their own; absolutely no reason they would not do well at commerce raiding and ship to shop actions, especially when with the French in active alliance, they have the opportunity to replenish in the French west indian and atlantic ports, and vice versa.
Yet in 1812 the USN was basically non-existent in terms of threat it posed against the British. Ship to ship actions, probably not. But I do agree on the piracy thing. Which is ironic considering OTL's Barbary Wars. The idea of an American and French pirate crew it pretty cool. :cool:

Jay's treat was to also include "compensation for 250 merchant ships which the British had confiscated in 1793 and 1794" which suggests to me that the Royal Navy pretty much has free reign over what they can and can't do.
Washington would remain as president; if Pickering takes over as secretary of war, then the following veterans (all Continental Army and who served at Yorktown, in commands ranging from battalion to division) would be available:

Hamilton, Knox, Lincoln, Carrington, Lamb, Muhlenberg, Hazen, Clinton, Van Cortlandt, Dayton, Olney, Wayne, Stewart.

Hamilton and Lincoln could each have led an independent command (army?), as could have Knox; the remaining ten certainly could have handled a brigade or division of the time. There were others who didn't make it to Yorktown, historically, but who were capable and still active in the 1790s - Daniel Morgan, for example. It is worth noting your depature point comes the same year as Fallen Timbers, which suggests the capabilities of the regulars on the northwestern frontier; Wayne had organized the Legion in 1793, after all.



Greene, unfortunately, had died in 1786.
Thank you, sir, for the wonderful information.
The US didn't collapse historically; no idea why you would think it was a possibility in the 1790s.

Best,
Based off of a previous thread:
If this war kicks off in 1794 the US isn't going to still be fighting by 1812, in just two years of warfare in the OTL war they were economically imploding, on the verge of applying an income tax on a tax averse nation and have increasing sectional strife.

By 1812 the British would be enjoying trading with their new Indian vassals in the old Northwest and the recently created New England federation.
There's no way Washington doesn't press as hard as possible for neutrality. Now, if you can get the British to make unreasonable demands during negotiations for the Jay treaty, then he might allow a war.

And if he does, than there's little chance the Americans can annex Canada! I mean, they might fare a bit better than imploding, but the implosion might also be far worse than we can imagine. Alexander Hamilton would have a field day. Madison and Jefferson would be rightly incensed because of his antics. At some point, both the South and the North may contemplate secession. Not a pretty picture, by any means.
 
The POD for the War could be that after the battle of Fallen Timbers on Aug 20, 1794, with the Indians retreating, the British open the gates to Fort Miami to let them in.

The American Legion comes on and places the Fort under siege. The British are forced to surrender the fort. After capturing the fort, Wayne prepares to capture Fort Detroit.

Instead of Jay's treaty a declaration of war is announced on Nov 19, 1794

To note, this is also the Whiskey rebellion era, a large militia is formed to respond to the six western PA counties. The militia roles west in Oct 1794 under Henry Lee. The Whiskey Rebellion subsides. In fact when news of the hostilities in Ohio reach western PA, some of the citizens join the militia and Lee.

Washington has Lee march the militia Fort Niagara in western NY. Since this is a militia, Lee only wants volunteers join in the march on Niagara. Half of the original militia sign on for the campaign against Niagara, 6000 troops.

After War is announced, more troops from New York and New England come forward. The rallying cry of British firing the first shots, spilling the first blood, evicting the British from NA come about.

The seond militia force goes to Fort Oswego.

In 1795, the Americans control the Northwest, Upper New York and most of Upper Canada. Former Loyalists in Upper Canada are targeted.

Washington is wise and does not bring about a conflict with the French Canadians.

Fighting is mainly relegated to the wilderness of the Ohio region, Upstate New York, and Upper Canada.

The British already engaged with France, have little to spare. French Canadians, seeing that Quebec proper is not under threat do little to protect Upper Canada, defend Lower Canada though which is not threatened.

What is known as Jay's treaty is signed in 1796 to end the Northwest War. After hostilities start, Jay heads to France. While in Europe, he is actually elected to governor of New York. In the treaty, the British cede Upper Canada for assurances that Loyalists which will now become Americans again are treated fairly and for a small sum of money. Britain is also given favored trade nation status.

So the big losers are the NW Indian tribes and the Loyalists of Upper Canada.

Longer term results of the Northwest War are US has further claims to upper Mississippi region. The war does not effect overall Napoleonic wars. Question as to weather Quasi-War commences. British still impress Americans on the high seas. But with Upper Canada already in hand, the War Hawks do not incite the War of 1812, and lasting peace with dignity if made with the British. USA will most likely expand to other portions of BNA west of the Mississippi. With Upper Canada, the ratio of slave to free will have some effect on North-South relations, perhaps the 1820 compromise is to limit slavery at Missouri's northern border instead of southern....... Also Texas may be admitted sooner ......
 
Last edited:
I don't think there will be a war, but there will be an increasingly confrontational attitude in the Northwest.

A lot of the problem resided with the American acting pretty egregious to loyalists during the Revolution regarding property seizures, so you might see more of an economic front as the British push back harder against the Americans in that front by more openly backing the Indians and refusing to relinquish the forts.
 
such a war is likely to go worse on the USA. There's a reason they put off the war.

Britain is not as engaged in the European theatre as they were in 1812. in 1812, their land forces are all in Iberia. In 1794, they were using their navy and their bank account in the war. They have the same mastery of the seas as they did in 1812. In 1812, the only thing that stopped them from landing wherever they wanted was fortified harbors. France has virtually no naval power, as the officer class left with the revolution, and their ships were easily blockaded by the British. Spain is a British Ally at this time. They're kicking ass in '94 in
War of the Pyrenees. Got pushed back in '95. Did an about face in '96. In '94, they're sabre rattling against the americans - they laid claims on Mississippi/Alabama/southern Georgia/Western Kentucky/Western Tennessee. OTL, they backed down because the Americans did the Jay Treaty, and Spain was worried USA would gain the backing of the Brits. TTL, it's the Americans who are going to have to back down and let the other side have the territory, lest the Spanish join in war to push it's claims. In this time frame, Kentucky was toying with the idea of seceding from the union and joining Spain, as the Americans on the other side of the Appalachians couldn't protect the settlers from the natives. Long term, not much changes if the Americans escape the war intact - Spain was horrible at developing colonies in this time period and the US is going to take the territory when they recover from this war. Short term, though, it's a psychological win for American foes. If the US splinters, all the better for Spanish ability to hold on to it's territories.

Meanwhile, the US was barely holding it's own against the natives, and OTL, got their assess kicked in the early going of war of 1812 when Britain was bogged down in Iberia. They're still recovering from a long, destructive war of independence. France doesn't have the means to finance the US. Will the Dutch give them a loan?

All in all, I think the US quickly finds out they should have listened to the voices that called for postponing the war. At a minimum, they lose the Northwest territories to Britain, and the South to Spain (probably short term).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Certainly an interesting extrapolation...

The POD for the War could be that after the battle of Fallen Timbers on Aug 20, 1794, with the Indians retreating, the British open the gates to Fort Miami to let them in.

The American Legion comes on and places the Fort under siege. The British are forced to surrender the fort. After capturing the fort, Wayne prepares to capture Fort Detroit.

Instead of Jay's treaty a declaration of war is announced on Nov 19, 1794

To note, this is also the Whiskey rebellion era, a large militia is formed to respond to the six western PA counties. The militia roles west in Oct 1794 under Henry Lee. The Whiskey Rebellion subsides. In fact when news of the hostilities in Ohio reach western PA, some of the citizens join the militia and Lee.

Washington has Lee march the militia Fort Niagara in western NY. Since this is a militia, Lee only wants volunteers join in the march on Niagara. Half of the original militia sign on for the campaign against Niagara, 6000 troops.

After War is announced, more troops from New York and New England come forward. The rallying cry of British firing the first shots, spilling the first blood, evicting the British from NA come about.

The seond militia force goes to Fort Oswego.

In 1795, the Americans control the Northwest, Upper New York and most of Upper Canada. Former Loyalists in Upper Canada are targeted.

Washington is wise and does not bring about a conflict with the French Canadians.

Fighting is mainly relegated to the wilderness of the Ohio region, Upstate New York, and Upper Canada.

The British already engaged with France, have little to spare. French Canadians, seeing that Quebec proper is not under threat do little to protect Upper Canada, defend Lower Canada though which is not threatened.

What is known as Jay's treaty is signed in 1796 to end the Northwest War. After hostilities start, Jay heads to France. While in Europe, he is actually elected to governor of New York. In the treaty, the British cede Upper Canada for assurances that Loyalists which will now become Americans again are treated fairly and for a small sum of money. Britain is also given favored trade nation status.

So the big losers are the NW Indian tribes and the Loyalists of Upper Canada.

Longer term results of the Northwest War are US has further claims to upper Mississippi region. The war does not effect overall Napoleonic wars. Question as to weather Quasi-War commences. British still impress Americans on the high seas. But with Upper Canada already in hand, the War Hawks do not incite the War of 1812, and lasting peace with dignity if made with the British. USA will most likely expand to other portions of BNA west of the Mississippi. With Upper Canada, the ratio of slave to free will have some effect on North-South relations, perhaps the 1820 compromise is to limit slavery at Missouri's northern border instead of southern....... Also Texas may be admitted sooner ......

Certainly an interesting extrapolation... another possible "incident" would be the dispatch of the grain convoy that led to the Glorious First of June, and which certainly shows the French were capable and in fact did embark on trans-atlantic operations in this period.

Likewise, in the Old Northwest, the combination of Wayne's 4,000 Legion regulars and Lee's 12,000 militia for western Pennsylvania is a larger force than the US embodied initially for 1812-15; likewise, the difference between 1812 and 1794 is the Revolutionary veterans are all 18 years younger and that much closer to major conventional operations.

As far as maritime war goes, the Revenue Marine (organized in 1790) does give a cadre/nucleus for a Navy, along with the obvious course of mobilizing Continental Navy veterans, state navies, and privateers - and those veterans are, again, only a decade out from active service, as opposed to almost three...

It's also worth noting that with Alliance and America, for example, the US was already capable of building ships that could compare with any in Europe.

It would certainly be bloody, but the US could, presumably, defend its ports and rivers and deploy and sustain power into the Old Northwest and potentially the Great Lakes and Upper Canada.

Best,
 
Top