John Adams reelected in 1800

POD Treaty of Mortefontaine: signed September 3, 1800 ending hostilities between France and the United States of America(three weeks early). The news travels across the Atlantic just in time to sway public opinion towards Adams for the admirable way he upheld the nations honor and avoid a potentially destructive at the same time, it is enough to swing 200 voters in New York City.

Adams takes New York state in the general election. However that isn't enough to guarantee Adams the Presidency. A contingency election must be held in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The lame duck House is still controlled by the Federalists, and they have no qualms about reelecting Adams since he did get carry the majority of states.

Adams will; however, have to contend with a Congress completely hostile to him. His veto pen still has power, though only if he keeps his party united behind him. So does Adams veto attempts to downsize the Navy (he can expect some help from South Carolinian and Maryland Republicans on that).

Any other thoughts on what Adams might or might not do differently, able or otherwise.
 
Definitely delay the embargo act as much as possible. You might conceivably not have a war of 1812. If he successfully fights of naval down-sizing, perhaps a more rapid and successful barbary war. Louisiana purchase might still happen.

Could be a cool TL: you should write it.
 
During Adam's second term I'd think if, Louisiana presents itself then its likely to go the same as OTL. Though that will have a lot to do with what goes in Haiti, Adams would be more sympathetic to the rebels but would still offer the French refugees safe harbor in America.

Going further into the future the main causes of the war of 1812 are still their. British aiding in attacks on the American frontier, impressment of American seamen, and the order of council in response to Napoleon's Continental System.

New England merchants might actually be a bit more pro-war if they have a navy sufficient enough to protect their commerce, and manufacturers may be even more if some tasty naval contracts are sent their way. A lot depends on who comes into office after Adams.
 
The party wouldn't split because Hamilton has no impetus to get the Adamas cabinet to spy for him while their wouldn't be a reconciliation they wouldn't destroy the Federalist Party. who follows Adams? Hamilton vs. Jefferson in 1804?
 
The party wouldn't split because Hamilton has no impetus to get the Adam's cabinet to spy for him while their wouldn't be a reconciliation they wouldn't destroy the Federalist Party. who follows Adams? Hamilton vs. Jefferson in 1804?

Possibly, but by law, Hamilton could never attain the presidency because of the fact that he was born in the West Indies. However, another contention for the presidency would possibly be an earlier running of James Madison, or even for that matter, Aaron Burr. In my opinion, I think it would be more so Aaron Burr, Because I believe he could give Jefferson a run for his money the best. However, We may have also seen the Secretary of State James Monroe run earlier as well.
 
Possibly, but by law, Hamilton could never attain the presidency because of the fact that he was born in the West Indies. However, another contention for the presidency would possibly be an earlier running of James Madison, or even for that matter, Aaron Burr. In my opinion, I think it would be more so Aaron Burr, Because I believe he could give Jefferson a run for his money the best. However, We may have also seen the Secretary of State James Monroe run earlier as well.

Hamilton was eligble for the Presidency because he was a citizen of the US at the time of its formation. Even so, he's not likely to run or to win because he was ferociously unpopular outside of New York / New England and carried the opprobrium of his affair.

Jefferson may have run his course if he loses twice, but if he doesn't run again there are too many additional contenders for the Democratic-Republicans to potentially pick. Also, the elections will depend on the events of an Adams administration.
 
I'm thinking Adams goes for the Louisiana purchase in 1803(with Dem-Rep backing)and this combined with his attitiude towards internal improvements helps rejuvenate the Federalist Party(giving it more support in the west). Adams also oversees the expanding of the Navy to include 8 ships of the line and the maintenence of 13 frigates. Buoyed by his success against France he sends the enlarged American navy against Tripoli. From 1801-03 the American fleet pounces on Tripolitarian shipping coastal cities in Cyrenea are seized as the US prepares to set up a friendly regime in Tripoli. This occurs after the Pasha flees a massive American bombardment of the city.

In 1804 the Federalists back Charles Cotesworth Pinckney(a Southerner)for the Presidency. Standing against him is Thomas Jefferson, the only Dem-Rep that can unite his party against the Federalists, the election is close but not as close as in 1800 as the Federalists pick up a number of western seats in Congress and votes in the electoral college.
 
Last edited:
Pinckney does seem like the logical choice for President in 1804. I would imagine that the increase in courting the western states might lead to a shift in emphasis from the Bank and the navy to internal improvements and Indian policy. Supporting improvments easily fits with Hamiltonian economics, but the question of Indians may be more difficult. Washington usually preferred peace with the Indians both out of republicanism and because of the immense costs of fighting Indian wars (or of keeping settlers off Indian lands). I would have to imagine, however, that the Bank issue continues to be a wedge issue between Northeastern Federalists and Western ones. I would bet that a Federalist administration will be more prone to work out the neutrality issues that spawned OTL's War of 1812 through diplomacy, but America may be spoiling for a fight.

The key issue I think are the futures of the OTL War Hawks, which included Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Calhoun. I'd imagine Clay and Webster are both Federalists, and may represent their respective regions. Seeing Calhoun as a Federalist is very hard, but he may have another alternative to the Democratic-Republicans. If the Federalist enthusiasm for the Alien and Sedition Acts subside (perhaps they are challenged in court), then perhaps Madison begins to work with the Administration.

What are the effects of no War of 1812 on the development of Canada? Any chance that the British bungle themselves into provoking a true Canadian rebellion? This could be very interesting, since a Federalist Era of Good Feelings won't be as inclined to intervene (though I imagine the temptation will be too much for them). And there's no reason to think the Canadians will be happy about becoming Americans. Competing North American Republics could be interesting!
 
In OTL the international 1805-1809 period would be dominated by the issues of impressment and trade restrictions placed by Britain on American commerce. I don't think that an embargo act would happen but their may be another large naval build up(Navy strength increased up to 12 ships of the line).

A possible Quasi-War with Britain could erupt after the Chesepeake-Leopard affair.
 
In OTL the international 1805-1809 period would be dominated by the issues of impressment and trade restrictions placed by Britain on American commerce. I don't think that an embargo act would happen but their may be another large naval build up(Navy strength increased up to 12 ships of the line).

A possible Quasi-War with Britain could erupt after the Chesepeake-Leopard affair.

It might but I'd imagine that a Federalist administration would be more inclined to work things out diplomatically. Remember that OTL, if Madison had delayed a bit longer, the British were about to revoke the Orders in Council. This wouldn't itself have resolved the impressment issue, but would have been enough of a release to forestall war.

Also, I seem to remember that OTL it was the big American frigates that went a long way to denting the British, whose older ships were usually comepletely outgunned by the American models. Does an American navy with Ships of the Line become more vulnerable to defeat, since it will go in search of a similar body of British ships, of which the British are likely to have more?
 
The SOL(ships of the line)were actually designed and would've been built with the same philosophy in mind that built the Constitution and Constellation classes. In fact their entire armament while rated at 74-guns would've comprised of 84 32-pdr long guns making them nearly equivalent to a 2nd-rated Royal Navy SOL.

Its possible that the War of 1812 might be averted though its also possible that a stronger Aerican Navy would lead to a more violent response to impressment, and thus an earlier war. I'm thinking of something like a declaration by the Congress to give the USN the right to search RN warships in for impressed Americans.
 
The SOL(ships of the line)were actually designed and would've been built with the same philosophy in mind that built the Constitution and Constellation classes. In fact their entire armament while rated at 74-guns would've comprised of 84 32-pdr long guns making them nearly equivalent to a 2nd-rated Royal Navy SOL.

Its possible that the War of 1812 might be averted though its also possible that a stronger Aerican Navy would lead to a more violent response to impressment, and thus an earlier war. I'm thinking of something like a declaration by the Congress to give the USN the right to search RN warships in for impressed Americans.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the USN. Astonishing concept.
A declaration like that would rife with irony!
 
Indeed, such a declaration would've thrown down the gantlet to the RN and challenge its very supremacy in American waters. I can't see the RN tucking tail and caving on this issue especially when threatened with force.

If a naval conflict breaks out in 1807-1808, I think the results would favor the USN much as they did in 1812 OTL probably even more so. Nationalist fervor would undoubtedly lead to a large naval build up on the great lakes.

The main question of the war expanding would rest on the British deciding whether the 5,000 or so impressed American are worth the price of redeploying additional forces to North America, especially when considering that in OTL over 1,000 impressed sailors preferred to spend the War of 1812 in British prisons rather than fight their own country.
 
Indeed, such a declaration would've thrown down the gantlet to the RN and challenge its very supremacy in American waters. I can't see the RN tucking tail and caving on this issue especially when threatened with force.

If a naval conflict breaks out in 1807-1808, I think the results would favor the USN much as they did in 1812 OTL probably even more so. Nationalist fervor would undoubtedly lead to a large naval build up on the great lakes.

I have to imagine that the USN's superiority in equipment and in individual ship design might be threatened in a long war by the shear number of ships the British could bring to bear. However, since most of the RN is probably busy on blockade, Britain might not be able to spare enough ships.

The main question of the war expanding would rest on the British deciding whether the 5,000 or so impressed American are worth the price of redeploying additional forces to North America, especially when considering that in OTL over 1,000 impressed sailors preferred to spend the War of 1812 in British prisons rather than fight their own country.

From a diplomatic standpoint, I agree these are terms, but once war breaks out, I would imagine that it largely depends on whether how willing the British are to meet American demands and on how successful American land movements have been against Canada. I have to imagine Britain would like to make peace quickly, but that's when the USA's demands will be the most extreme. Barring a large turn of events in Europe, I can't see Britain giving in without the Americans actually having much of the Niagara peninsula / St. Lawrence in hand. And that proved kind of difficult OTL.

Plus I think we underestimate the degree to which New England commerce depended on links with New England, regardless of the affronts of impressment. Why would the Federalists advocate war when it goes against the economic interests of their primary constituents? I guess it depends on just what Pinckney's administration looks like and how having a Southern Federalist in power changes the party (and accordingly how the Dem-Rep alter their own strategy). It occurs to me that there is a potential alliance on states' rights issues between certain of the Dem-Reps and the New Englanders most strongly opposed to the war. Interesting tack for the early development of the two - party system.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Indeed, such a declaration would've thrown down the gantlet to the RN and challenge its very supremacy in American waters. I can't see the RN tucking tail and caving on this issue especially when threatened with force.

If a naval conflict breaks out in 1807-1808, I think the results would favor the USN much as they did in 1812 OTL probably even more so. Nationalist fervor would undoubtedly lead to a large naval build up on the great lakes.

The main question of the war expanding would rest on the British deciding whether the 5,000 or so impressed American are worth the price of redeploying additional forces to North America, especially when considering that in OTL over 1,000 impressed sailors preferred to spend the War of 1812 in British prisons rather than fight their own country.

Why in God's name would the USN, even IF it possessed 8-12 Ships of the Line & 13 frigates (which would have bankrupted the U.S. government, the fleet as it was consumed an average of 20% of the U.S. TOTAL budget from 1800 - 1810, even with the 1802 anomaly), want to throw down the gauntlet before the Royal Navy?

The British, in 1805, had 106 ships rate 74 guns or higher, and additional 16 razeed 74's rated 44 to 50 guns (+ 19 in ordinary), 133 frigates (+ 96 in ordinary), and 400+ sloops of war. In addition, in 1805, the Royal navy had two 120 gun, three 100 gun, one 98 gun, and twenty 74 gun Ships of the Line under construction. The USN fleet that has been proposed would not even be a decent squadron by comparision, not against the naval powers of the day (The French/Spanish fleet at Trafalager numbered 33 ships 74 or higher, Nelson, commanded 27).

How did the War of 1812 conditions favor the U.S.? The USN LOST the Naval phase of the War of 1812. Despite the rather inspiring victories of Constitution and other frigates the USN was outmatched, outnumbered and out gunned. Even the sidshow on the Lakes was, like the war itself, at best, a draw.

The USN had some very nice one on one victories when frigates of the USN & RN engaged (as noted, the American Frigates were more like razeed 74's than actual frigates) but the war ended with virtually the entire American Navy bottled up in one port or another by RN blockade or captured (only Constitution was at sea among the frigates, and she had been blockaded for months before breaking out). Specifically:

USS Adams Blockaded 1812 to 1/18/1814. Burned to prevent capture 3/9/1814.

USS Chesapeake Captured 6/1/1813

USS Congress Blockaded 12/14/1813

USS Constellation In Ordinary at start of war. Sailed in December 1812; Blockaded January 1813

USS Constitution Blockaded on several occasions. Escaped, was at sea when war ended.

USS Essex Captured by RN 3/28/1814

USS John Adams Blockaded 1812 to April 1814; released under flag of truce carrying American diplomats to Peace Conference

USS New York In ordinary at start of war Burned 8/24/1814

USS President Blockaded February 1814 to 1/15/1815; Captured by British 1/16/1815

USS United States Blockaded 6/1/1813


The United States in 1800, or 1810, or 1820, or 1830, etc. was no match for the Royal Navy, a condition that remained true until the 1920's (save 1862-1865, and then only if the RN was obliging enough to close to 10 miles or less off the U.S. coast). The British Empire was 1) Rich, 2) Very Rich, 3) Filthy Rich & 4) An EMPIRE (and a rich one at that);). The United States, prior to 1880 or so was anything but rich; look at the Budget for any year during the period, you will notice that there is IS NO MONEY. Even after 1880, it wasn't until 1913, with the introduction of the Income Tax (BOO! HISS!!:eek:) that the American government had sufficient funds to build a serious, balanced fleet (the WW I American fleet was terrific, as long as you only counted battleships, if you added in cruisers and destroyers, she came up a bit short.)

In the 1800s England ruled the waves, just that simple. It galls my hyper-patriotic American self to say it, but it's true.
 
Why in God's name would the USN, even IF it possessed 8-12 Ships of the Line & 13 frigates (which would have bankrupted the U.S. government, the fleet as it was consumed an average of 20% of the U.S. TOTAL budget from 1800 - 1810, even with the 1802 anomaly), want to throw down the gauntlet before the Royal Navy?

First off, due to the other needs from 1807-1813 Britain could only send 12 ships of the line to the western hemisphere. Secondly it would bankrupt a US government with responsible fiscal policies(like the Federalists). Finally, ha, ha size matters not, you do realize that you'd be dealing with Yankees, no.

The British, in 1805, had 106 ships rate 74 guns or higher, and additional 16 razeed 74's rated 44 to 50 guns (+ 19 in ordinary), 133 frigates (+ 96 in ordinary), and 400+ sloops of war. In addition, in 1805, the Royal navy had two 120 gun, three 100 gun, one 98 gun, and twenty 74 gun Ships of the Line under construction. The USN fleet that has been proposed would not even be a decent squadron by comparision, not against the naval powers of the day (The French/Spanish fleet at Trafalager numbered 33 ships 74 or higher, Nelson, commanded 27).
But with only 12 to spare for a good part of the war.

How did the War of 1812 conditions favor the U.S.? The USN LOST the Naval phase of the War of 1812. Despite the rather inspiring victories of Constitution and other frigates the USN was outmatched, outnumbered and out gunned. Even the sidshow on the Lakes was, like the war itself, at best, a draw.
Umm no, in OTL the USN did what it could relatively successfully. The USN won both major battles on the lakes and would have had parity in 1815 if not marginal superiority.
 
I have to imagine that the USN's superiority in equipment and in individual ship design might be threatened in a long war by the shear number of ships the British could bring to bear. However, since most of the RN is probably busy on blockade, Britain might not be able to spare enough ships.

This is true as the war dragged on the British would've been able to blockade the US regardless.

From a diplomatic standpoint, I agree these are terms, but once war breaks out, I would imagine that it largely depends on whether how willing the British are to meet American demands and on how successful American land movements have been against Canada. I have to imagine Britain would like to make peace quickly, but that's when the USA's demands will be the most extreme. Barring a large turn of events in Europe, I can't see Britain giving in without the Americans actually having much of the Niagara peninsula / St. Lawrence in hand. And that proved kind of difficult OTL.
Control of Upper Canada would depend on control of the lakes. I think a Federalist administration would be wiling to take up the expense of Great Lakes squadrons and the Dem-Rep would friendlier to naval forces on the lakes rather than on the coast. Lower Canada is out of the question plain and simple.

Plus I think we underestimate the degree to which New England commerce depended on links with New England, regardless of the affronts of impressment. Why would the Federalists advocate war when it goes against the economic interests of their primary constituents? I guess it depends on just what Pinckney's administration looks like and how having a Southern Federalist in power changes the party (and accordingly how the Dem-Rep alter their own strategy). It occurs to me that there is a potential alliance on states' rights issues between certain of the Dem-Reps and the New Englanders most strongly opposed to the war. Interesting tack for the early development of the two - party system.

You have a point there. But I'm thinking the Federalists might be smarter and not want to be labeled as Tories in dress up. After all, the War of Independence started in New England despite economic attachments.
 
Top