In OTL, during the presidency of John Adams, the U.S. was involved in naval skirmishing with the French that could have effectively made the U.S. party to the War of the Second Coalition. Assuming Adams takes the country to war, and the Americans successfully secure what would have been the Louisiana Purchase as a result of this war, what are the consequences for the Consulate, especially if the Haitian rebellion still takes place more or less as OTL?
Effects on Napoleon's Plans in Europe if the Quasi-War Turns Hot
- Thread starter Wendell
- Start date
I don't think they would be very great. The United States had limited objectives in the French War. They only wanted the French to stop harassing's American Shipping, and accept Envoys without having to pay bribes. If the French had somehow escalated the conflict into a full blown war, John Adams might have been reelected in 1800. Adams might then have secured the Louisiana Purchase as part of the Peace of Amiens. That could usher in a Federalist Era, with Alexander Hamilton being elected President in 1804. It was the Jeffersonians who pushed laws to bar women from voting, because they tended to vote Federalist. The Federalists would have pushed for laws to expand Women's Suffrage. Women might've gained the right to vote before the freeing of the Slaves. The 13th Amendment might have been Women's Suffrage.
Hamilton would've had better relations with the British, so maybe no Chesapeake/Leopard Incident, no Embargo Act, and no War of 1812. New England Industry, and Commerce would continue to grow, increasing it's regional power in the Federal Union, vs. the South, and West. With a strong Central Bank, and more national support for commerce, and industry American Industrialization would be accelerated. Tomas Jefferson might not be on Mount Rushmore, it could be John Adams. Without the War of 1812, and with better Anglo/American commercial relations Great Britain is under less strain in the last years of the Napoleonic wars. Without the Burning of the White House the Tense Anglo/American relations of the 19th Century might have been avoided.
So to answer your question I think it would've had little effect on the Consulate, but potentially a much greater effect on the United States.
Hamilton would've had better relations with the British, so maybe no Chesapeake/Leopard Incident, no Embargo Act, and no War of 1812. New England Industry, and Commerce would continue to grow, increasing it's regional power in the Federal Union, vs. the South, and West. With a strong Central Bank, and more national support for commerce, and industry American Industrialization would be accelerated. Tomas Jefferson might not be on Mount Rushmore, it could be John Adams. Without the War of 1812, and with better Anglo/American commercial relations Great Britain is under less strain in the last years of the Napoleonic wars. Without the Burning of the White House the Tense Anglo/American relations of the 19th Century might have been avoided.
So to answer your question I think it would've had little effect on the Consulate, but potentially a much greater effect on the United States.
On the one hand this feels like a wank, but on the other, I like everything you mentioned
True it was, but the question was if the United States had joined the War of the Second Coalition. That war went on till 1802, and France was the possessor of New Orleans by then. I suggested the Louisiana Purchase could have been part of the Peace of Amiens, or it could have happened as in the OTL. With what if's it's always hard to know what would change, and in what ways. It was just a subjective guess on my part, but I think it was plausible.
I think the end of the Quasi-War and the reacquisition of Louisiana were linked though. Likewise the War of the Second Coalition was mostly over by that time (Marengo was fought in June1800). If France is still in the middle of the war, I don't think Bonaparte is likely to think about North America.
As much as I want to say yes, realistically its very doubtful for the US to win the war. Sure the French are at a dissadvantage given their navy could barely muster against the potential blockade, America's real problem here lies in Spain. Unlike after thr peninsular war, Spain still has loyal soldiers in the new world ready to fight, which has the potential of kicking the US "army" (more like a milita at this time than anything) where the sun don't shine. Not to mention the slog that would be the bayous and everglades, as well as aggression from natives such as the Seminole. In all likelyhood, you're obly going to get an earlier Spanish-American war, with the big exception being that Spain can and will win.
Spain may be at war with the United States, but the U.S. is arguably better suited for war here than it was under Madison or Jefferson in OTL, and here, Spain is in effect fighting several other countries. Also, Spanish entreaties to the indigenous peoples of the Southeast were attempted historically without real success.
Considering that Spanish Florida was so lightly defended in the period we're talking about, and how little it was worth to them, Spain isn't going to defeat the United States. After the War of 1812 Jackson took Florida with a few thousand militia, with little trouble. Once the Indians in Alabama, and Mississippi were defeated Florida was going to fall. Louisiana would have been tough, but Napoleon could see the writing on the wall, after 1802 with the start of the War of the Third Coalition. British Sea Power made major French, or Spanish reinforcements impossible, the population growth in the Mississippi Valley made the fall of Louisiana a virtual certainty. The United States had a vital strategic interest in controlling the Mississippi River, and nether France, or Spain were going to stop them from attaining it.
Skallagrim
Banned
I think @Belisarius II is largely correct on the prospectives for taking Florida and Louisiana. Spain is formally a French ally, and the Federalists were clamouring for the seizure of these territories anyway (in no small part as an excuse for instituting a standing army, by the way). Even a lot of Jeffersonians would get on board, if only for practical reasons. That being said: there is no way Hamilton will be President with this POD. His career was already ruined, and his absurdly abrasive personality had turned even a lot of his friends into bitter enemies. A serious attempt by Hamilton would tear the Federalist Party into factionalist shreds, and everybody knew it.
Also, the gaining of Louisiana would presumably still be a purchase (just like the Americans paid for Mexico's northern regions after the Mexican-American War), meaning that compared to OTL, the USA would be worse off (fighting for it and paying for it), but to be fair, nobody would know that.
As for the Federalists: don't be too deceived by their (purely opportunist) support for female suffrage. At the end of the day, they were by and large the conservative party (and gleefully painted Jefferson as a "Jacobin"). Note also that there was a Federalist planter elite in the Deep South, while Jefferson's base was mostly the yeoman class. The Federalist Party was the elite party. As such, that hypothetical thirteenth amendment giving women the vote is as likely as not to be paired with a fourteenth amendment imposing stringent wealth and property qualifications for the national vote. Because that, too, would serve the Federalist cause. In fact, without it, Federalist dominance is doomed to end within a decade. Only by ensuring that the vote is restricted to the affluent can the Federalists stay in power.
Indeed, the North would have thrived on the revenue raised via high tariffs and duties. As we have seen in OTL, the Federalists were inclined to select duties that disproportionally screwed over the population groups that were heavily Jeffersonian. (The infamous whiskey tax was one such example.) The national tariff, too, would to a great extent hit states like Virginia and others states of the Mid-Atlantic and the South, while paying for "internal improvement" in the North-East. This would cause large-scale discontent. Emboldened by their successes, and facing increasing hostility from the Jeffersonians, we may safely expect the Federalists to push for even worse Alien and Sedition Acts, as they try to stamp out "Jacobin radicals". Things will get very nasty. Borderline civil war nasty.
It will be easy for the Jeffersonians to paint the Federalists (who are in bed with Britain) as "having returned us to the yoke of King George". Either there is a political revolution in 1808 or 1812, with the Federalits swept from power, the Constitution dramatically revised in a Jeffersonian way, et cetera -- or we see a much earlier Civil War, at a time when the North doesn't yet have its vast power advantage, meaning that the USA gets split permanently. (In which case everything @Belisarius II notes about Anglo-American relations still holds true, but it'll just be relations between Britain and a much-reduced USA.)
We may conclude that what America does or doesn't do in the context of the Quasi-War is only ever going to be a peripheral concern for Europe. But on the home front, it may just have butterflies that render the USA completely unrecognisable.
Also, the gaining of Louisiana would presumably still be a purchase (just like the Americans paid for Mexico's northern regions after the Mexican-American War), meaning that compared to OTL, the USA would be worse off (fighting for it and paying for it), but to be fair, nobody would know that.
As for the Federalists: don't be too deceived by their (purely opportunist) support for female suffrage. At the end of the day, they were by and large the conservative party (and gleefully painted Jefferson as a "Jacobin"). Note also that there was a Federalist planter elite in the Deep South, while Jefferson's base was mostly the yeoman class. The Federalist Party was the elite party. As such, that hypothetical thirteenth amendment giving women the vote is as likely as not to be paired with a fourteenth amendment imposing stringent wealth and property qualifications for the national vote. Because that, too, would serve the Federalist cause. In fact, without it, Federalist dominance is doomed to end within a decade. Only by ensuring that the vote is restricted to the affluent can the Federalists stay in power.
Indeed, the North would have thrived on the revenue raised via high tariffs and duties. As we have seen in OTL, the Federalists were inclined to select duties that disproportionally screwed over the population groups that were heavily Jeffersonian. (The infamous whiskey tax was one such example.) The national tariff, too, would to a great extent hit states like Virginia and others states of the Mid-Atlantic and the South, while paying for "internal improvement" in the North-East. This would cause large-scale discontent. Emboldened by their successes, and facing increasing hostility from the Jeffersonians, we may safely expect the Federalists to push for even worse Alien and Sedition Acts, as they try to stamp out "Jacobin radicals". Things will get very nasty. Borderline civil war nasty.
It will be easy for the Jeffersonians to paint the Federalists (who are in bed with Britain) as "having returned us to the yoke of King George". Either there is a political revolution in 1808 or 1812, with the Federalits swept from power, the Constitution dramatically revised in a Jeffersonian way, et cetera -- or we see a much earlier Civil War, at a time when the North doesn't yet have its vast power advantage, meaning that the USA gets split permanently. (In which case everything @Belisarius II notes about Anglo-American relations still holds true, but it'll just be relations between Britain and a much-reduced USA.)
We may conclude that what America does or doesn't do in the context of the Quasi-War is only ever going to be a peripheral concern for Europe. But on the home front, it may just have butterflies that render the USA completely unrecognisable.
Last edited:
You make many valid points., and may be correct about the eventual extinction of the federalists. However a lot could change. In 1800 the no war no peace status with France was very unpopular, with a major war going on a rally around the flag feeling would sweep the country. The Alien & Sedition Acts were the worst mistake Adams, and the federalists ever made, and one of the worst in American History. (The Hartford Convention was a close second.)The federalists, after Washington were never a national party, and the House of Representatives would have been in the control of the republicans, so a federalist president would have to make many compromises, parties have to grow, and change. With developments in Europe pro "Jacobin" sentiment in America was waning, even among republicans. No one was parading though the streets with guillotines by the late 1790's, which is why the A & S acts were so unnecessary.
The Southerners actually would have liked a pro British policy, since they loved British imports, and likened themselves to English Gentlemen. A pro British policy would have forced the federalists to moderate their tariff demands to acceptable levels for both the South, and Britain. Tariffs, and internal improvements were always negotiable, the slavery issue was the insoluble problem, and that would still take decades to foment. It's not like there would be an anti slavery New England President in office all the time, to enrage Southern Slave Holders. I don't really see an early Civil War provoked by a federalist party that survived, and prospered after 1800. Northern Anti Slavery opinion wouldn't have developed much faster with the federalists still around. But I do think women voting would have been advanced, and a Constitutional Amendment for property qualifications to vote would never have been passed by 3/4 of the states.
There is no way Adams would achieve Louisiana as a result of Amiens unless he had first conquered it. Which without an army or a navy is a good trick. The British could have managed it but then it goes into the mix with the Cape, Menorca. If it becomes a sticking point then the USA just melts into the English Speaking world and as said the causes of the war of 1812 generally disappear.
Jacobin was one of the nicer things the Federalists called Jefferson. And he responded in kind, too.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Why is it automatic that USA joins the coalition war? They don't want to get encumbered in Europe. Might it be a case of US vs France? Britain would be happy to see French resources diverted without necessarily demanding a formal alliance.
Doubtful France can mount much boots on the ground action, but they might try to stir up slave rebellion if Haiti looks lost. This would leave USA on the warpath of conquest, looking to take some of those profitable sugar islands. IF USA can make landfall, now their troops are ready prey for tropical disease. This has all the makings for a major morass.
France likely pressures Spain to get involved, but Spain had always been a reluctant ally. Spain getting involved likely brings Britain into the mix, and Spain does NOT want Britain actively involved in Spanish colonial affairs (anglo-spanish aggression was mostly a blockade at this time). Also at this time, the Spanish gamble that France was on the verge of ultimate victory seems to have gone bust. The blockade was hurting badly, and they had to be constantly goaded to provide much assistance to France. Spain might flip again, or angle toward neutrality if France pushes too hard.
IF Spain does get involved, though, folks have to stop projecting OTL post Nap/1812 wars US/Spain abilities onto 1800 time frame. Spain is not decimated by the Iberian War, and USA has not yet learned that the militia system doesn't lend itself to force projection. The Indian nations haven't been defeated yet. Don't just automatically assume the stereotypical USA takes what it wants, whenever it wants.
Doubtful France can mount much boots on the ground action, but they might try to stir up slave rebellion if Haiti looks lost. This would leave USA on the warpath of conquest, looking to take some of those profitable sugar islands. IF USA can make landfall, now their troops are ready prey for tropical disease. This has all the makings for a major morass.
France likely pressures Spain to get involved, but Spain had always been a reluctant ally. Spain getting involved likely brings Britain into the mix, and Spain does NOT want Britain actively involved in Spanish colonial affairs (anglo-spanish aggression was mostly a blockade at this time). Also at this time, the Spanish gamble that France was on the verge of ultimate victory seems to have gone bust. The blockade was hurting badly, and they had to be constantly goaded to provide much assistance to France. Spain might flip again, or angle toward neutrality if France pushes too hard.
IF Spain does get involved, though, folks have to stop projecting OTL post Nap/1812 wars US/Spain abilities onto 1800 time frame. Spain is not decimated by the Iberian War, and USA has not yet learned that the militia system doesn't lend itself to force projection. The Indian nations haven't been defeated yet. Don't just automatically assume the stereotypical USA takes what it wants, whenever it wants.
Thats exactly what I was saying. During this period, the Spanish army still had teeth while the American army was ill-prepared. Florida is something I could potentially see conquered, but Louisiana is, at best, a stretch.
unprincipled peter
Donor
I don't think Louisiana is outside the realm of possibilities. OTL, USA has had a charmed life that would be an outlandish wank if it wasn't true. That could continue in TTL. Meanwhile, never underestimate the ability of Spain of that era to fudge up anything and everything. Plus, their military had teeth, but it was pretty cavity riven.
I just find it annoying when people assume USA is unstoppable in that era.
The US sits over a large landmass which provides it a great opportunity for demographic expansion. It would never sit on its own because like countries in Europe there is an interest in keeping it within a balance of power. The US's rise wasn't a "wank," it was the result of some pretty firm geographic and strategic advantages, as well as one engendered by its (for the time) democratic form of governance that provides more opportunity than the then-class stratified Europe.
Last edited: