The French do not interfere in the American Revolutionary War

What would it take to get King Louis XVI of France to not spend blood and gold on aiding the American revolution? I was toying with a butterfly effect of some timelines I've been working on being that France has some potentially valuable colonies that they don't want to risk losing to the British, and so they don't support the American Revolution. However, this doesn't seem to be realistic as IOTL they had some very valuable Caribbean colonies that could have been attacked by the Royal Navy, but risked them anyway just to annoy Britain by aiding their rebellious colonies.

Is Louis XVI just so completely into sabotaging King George III that he would help the American Revolution no matter what? Or would there be something that would make him think twice?

(I didn't find anything in my searches, but for all the money I spent on my MLS degree I am concerningly bad at searching sometimes. Please post the threads if this has already been discussed)
 
If the previous war had not been such a disaster for France, there wouldn't be the same desire for revenge.

Have the Seven Years War go differently. Maybe France still loses all/most of New France (so the American Revolution isn't butterflied) but wins in India, for example. That would be a tolerable outcome for the French government - New France was not that high of a priority in the first place). So when Louis XVI takes the throne, he has no big desire for war, and further, he concludes that it is crazy to support the revolt of commoners in America against their sovereign.
 
there were two levels of interference.
Initially, both Spain and France provided covert aid. Then France was foolish enough to jump in big time and ended up with a declaration of war.
It's hard to envision France not providing a low level of aid. However, I think it wouldn't be too hard to avoid the higher level of aid/war. Maybe avoid or change the outcome of Saratoga, so the Patriots don't have a victory, or as large a one, so France doesn't get the notion that the Patriots were on the cusp of victory.
With the low level of aid, the war gets interesting. Do the Patriots have it in them to grind out a long, slow victory. Do France/Spain continue to provide aid for 5-10 more years?

and, yes, this has been discussed multiple time here. I use the google search engine, typing in alternatehistory American revolution france. a whole bunch of threads from this website pop up.
 
France was in a pretty poor state financially, which the American Revolution only made worse. Maybe have Louis XVI decide that the country just can't afford another war, and it would be better to sit this one out? Not sure how in-character that would be, though.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I find it implausible given the context of Anglo French relations in the 18th century that the French would not see a chance to take the British down a peg with assisting the American colonists.

It is fascinating really-by the end the American Revolution was less focused on the Americas and more a global European conflict.

I'd be interested that if for some reason the French provide only minimal aid if maybe the Spanish would step up and support the Americans more actively and openly.
 
I find it implausible given the context of Anglo French relations in the 18th century that the French would not see a chance to take the British down a peg with assisting the American colonists.

Well, the British had recently chosen not to intervene when France conquered Corsica. As much of a rivalry as it was, practical considerations could factor in, too. IOTL the prestige of the French monarchy had been damaged by the defeat in 1763. If you do not have it happen to that degree, the government of Louis XVI may feel secure enough to not get involved in another overseas conflict.
 
Defeat at Saratoga would have probably been enough for the French to not throw money at what they regarded as a lost cause.
 
I find it implausible given the context of Anglo French relations in the 18th century that the French would not see a chance to take the British down a peg with assisting the American colonists.

It is fascinating really-by the end the American Revolution was less focused on the Americas and more a global European conflict.

I'd be interested that if for some reason the French provide only minimal aid if maybe the Spanish would step up and support the Americans more actively and openly.

The French did decide not to intervene in the Faklkands crisis because they knew their finances and military weren't in great shape.

There is no way the Spanish jump in if French gives it a pass. They were very nervous about the precedent due to their own colonies and it was only French haranging about their alliance commitments that got them to join in.
 
"What would it take to get King Louis XVI of France to not spend blood and gold on aiding the American revolution?"

He decides he really doesn't want to go to war? War until Louis XVI screwed things up for everyone was the sport of kings. Kings could decide to go to war for gratuitous reasons or, less often, be fairly pacifist. Frederick the Great passed up many opportunities to go to war, including a big one in 1778, after the Seven Years War. However French monarchs up to 1870, Louis Philippe being the only possible exception I can think of off hand, went to war without much prompting.

This is becoming something of a hobby horse of mine, but one thing missing from standard accounts of the American War of Independence, which in English language histories are all American focused, is that there was a high probability of a rematch between France and Britain in the 1770s even without the Americans breaking off. In fact, many of the actions of the British government after 1763, which otherwise seem borderline insane when looked at from the perspective of keeping the American mainland colonies within the empire, make sense in the context of preparing for the inevitable next war with France. And if you read the parliamentary debates at the time through Hansard, the prospect of war with France gets referenced.

The fact is that the thirteen colonies were something of a strategic liability to Britain unless the arrangements in 1763 were changed. Yes, they got timber and troops from the colonies, but got no revenue, not even the customs revenue the colonists sort of conceded they could collect and had to spend large sums on their defense. The British governments at the time were trying to get their fiscal house in order, something the French governments at the time also tried to do and completely failed at it, and the colonies were a big money pit, plus trying to firm up their position in Canada and India in ways that pissed off the Americans.

Even once the War of American Independence had started, the Admiralty resisted efforts, even by the King, to get the navy to provide more support for the American war because they wanted to keep a reserve in home waters in the event of war with France.

So its probably easier to get an Anglo-French War in the 1770s and no War of American Independence than the other way around. Even as late as 1776 the British government could have just cut their losses and not attempted a reconquest.
 
Is Louis XVI just so completely into sabotaging King George III that he would help the American Revolution no matter what? Or would there be something that would make him think twice?

IIRC Louis was ACTUALLY opposed to the war. He didn't want to support a bunch of rebels against their rightful monarch. However, most of his ministers were very much for it, citing the prospect of sticking it to England and that America would be SO grateful for French aid if successful that they would grant France her every desire. The finance minister told him the first shot will bankrupt France. However, somehow Louis believed they were right and he was wrong (although in an absolute monarchy the final decision lay solely with him). The economic boons hoped for never materialised as not only did America continue trading with England as opposed to switching to France, but there was also talk (I'm not sure if this was the case or not) that they didn't intend to pay France back for the money/arms/ships that they'd got from the French entry until the treaty of Paris was signed.
 
Top