The young US to become a French client state?

Having fought a war of independence with French assistance, how probable was it for the Young United States to develop a reliance on France, lose its political independence, and become a French client state?

It could either fall for the Kingdom or the Republic of France, or both.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Having fought a war of independence with French assistance, how probable was it for the Young United States to develop a reliance on France, lose its political independence, and become a French client state?

It could either fall for the Kingdom or the Republic of France, or both.

The USA wanted to avoid foreign entanglements, so it would be hard to do, but not impossible. What you need is a sustained threat to the USA that is credible and believe. So lets skip why the UK would do it, but imagine.

Right after the ARW, the UK does not demobilize the forces in the USA but simply moves them to the Halifax area. UK regularly trains to retake USA. It is state policy goal and openly talked about in England. In such a situation, once the threat was strong enough, the USA would be forced to ally with someone. Full client state is a bit hard to imagine, but the USA moving towards the lesser ally in alliance system with France might happen. It may take series of POD, but I would say plausible.
 
The USA wanted to avoid foreign entanglements, so it would be hard to do, but not impossible. What you need is a sustained threat to the USA that is credible and believe. So lets skip why the UK would do it, but imagine.

Don't need that; Cornwallis escapes at Yorktown; a broke USA sues for peace which sees Britain holding the American south.

Boom!
 
Don't need that; Cornwallis escapes at Yorktown; a broke USA sues for peace which sees Britain holding the American south.

Boom!

Seems entirely plausible.

Does Britain hang onto Canada, sandwiching the United States, or does it give it up to France in exchange for the southern colonies during the peace negotiations?
 
Seems entirely plausible.

Does Britain hang onto Canada, sandwiching the United States, or does it give it up to France in exchange for the southern colonies during the peace negotiations?

I'd assume they'd hang onto Canada aswell, with Britain being the more powerful of the two nations, and the USA being broke and surfing for peace.
 

Neirdak

Banned
We could also have : June 1783 (before the Treaty of Paris)

Alexander Hamilton is unable to persuade the mutineers of the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 (which in OTL led to the creation of Washington D.C) to free the members of Congress. The soldiers get angry and a shooting ensues. Many Congressmen die and the newly born United States of America slowly tears itself apart.

In despair and deeply shocked, the remaining Congress which is losing power calls the remaining French troops for help and in the future Treaty of Paris in september, a small clause stipulates that :

"In order to ensure the sovereignty of newly born United States of America, the French Kingdom will let on american continent a number of 50'000 troops. The French Royal Navy will have the rights to settle in all US ports and to board any departing or arriving ships. Food and accommodations for those soldiers and sailors will be provided by the US Congress. In exchange those troops and ships will ensure the safety of the US Congress and help to protect this new Nation from any external or internal threats".
We can later add stipulations about foreign trade and foreign relations in other future treaties. :rolleyes:


EDIT : 100'000 troops was surely to much, 50'000 would be better. The aim is to have a kind of French Pretorian guard protecting the Congress and french military settlements in USA, while letting the french navy use the American ports.
 
Last edited:
The USA wanted to avoid foreign entanglements, so it would be hard to do, but not impossible. What you need is a sustained threat to the USA that is credible and believe. So lets skip why the UK would do it, but imagine.

How about the Paris Peace Conference goes worse for the Americans then it did OTL? Let's say Lord Shelburne isn't Prime Minister; Lord Portland is with the real power belonging to Lord North. Portland/North don't give Appalachia away to the Americans in the peace talks - Spain and France go along with it because they wanted to halt American expansion OTL anyway. America doesn't declare war on Britain right away to take back Appalachia, and so is limited to the thirteen states.

Then the French Revolution goes down a bit differently; there's not as much bloodshed for whatever reason. America might stay pro-French a little longer. Then when the Wars of the Revolution hit, America attempts to take advantage of a distracted England to conquer Appalachia. Considering that the American military was even worse in the 1790's then it was during the War of 1812, it's not much of a stretch to say America is going to take a beating. From there, its not inconceivable France somehow rescues America - maybe trade it for Egypt and the Levant? - and makes it a puppet state/weaker ally.
 
Keep the French presence in Louisiana.

Speaking of which, isn't Napoleon's sale a major POD? France had always been an ancient friend of the U.S. Had things gone differently, American expansionism would have been nipped permanently, or at least decades when American-French relations go hypothetically sour.
 
Keep the French presence in Louisiana.

Speaking of which, isn't Napoleon's sale a major POD? France had always been an ancient friend of the U.S. Had things gone differently, American expansionism would have been nipped permanently, or at least decades when American-French relations go hypothetically sour.

French control of Louisiana was dubious at best because of Royal Navy presence. Even in the case of a Napoleonic victory and even if Haiti remains french (let's not be impressed by implausibility, shall we?), Lousiana was too far, too underdeveloped, too close from US to stand in french ends indefinitely. You could even see a mix of 1848 and 1898 wars for the territory in the case of Napoleonic defeat.
If Napoleon is victorious, it's more likely he'll focus on Europe or even naval power rather than Americas.
 
Last edited:
We could also have : June 1783 (before the Treaty of Paris)

Alexander Hamilton is unable to persuade the mutineers of the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 (which in OTL led to the creation of Washington D.C) to free the members of Congress. The soldiers get angry and a shooting ensues. Many Congressmen die and the newly born United States of America slowly tears itself apart.

In despair and deeply shocked, the remaining Congress which is losing power calls the remaining French troops for help and in the future Treaty of Paris in september, a small clause stipulates that :

We can later add stipulations about foreign trade and foreign relations in other future treaties. :rolleyes:

100,000 troops would be an obscenely difficult force to supply. Just annexing he colonies would more be cheaper.

The big problem is really distance. Enforcing French rule over a German or Italian puppet state is much easier than enforcing one over a state which is at least twenty days away just to send a message.
 

Neirdak

Banned
100,000 troops would be an obscenely difficult force to supply. Just annexing he colonies would more be cheaper.

The big problem is really distance. Enforcing French rule over a German or Italian puppet state is much easier than enforcing one over a state which is at least twenty days away just to send a message.

Yes 100'000 troops is certainly too much. 50'000 or 20'000 would be better.

The French could try to create military-civilian fortified settlements officially built to defend the USA. Those settlements would be autonomous (food, farms, industries, accomodation) and could surprisingly be economically profitable. We could also have one Congress guard made of french "Pretorians". France would just have to pay those troops better than the US Congress.

The idea is to still have one independant US while indirectly controlling parts of his defense and economy. Such a move would ensure one peaceful acceptance by the population and wouldn't shock the British and the Spanish. It's also a simple way to get access to the huge Louisiana territory through the US and to get the right to use US ports without one costly annexation.

France could also let Lafayette in charge of the French troops, which could help to butterfly the French Revolution. :cool:
 
French control of Louisiana was dubious at best because of Royal Navy presence. Even in the case of a Napoleonic victory and even if Haiti remains french (let's not be impressed by implausibility, shall we?), Lousiana was too far, too underdeveloped, too close from US to stand in french ends indefinitely. You could even see a mix of 1848 and 1898 wars for the territory in the case of Napoleonic defeat.
If Napoleon is victorious, it's more likely he'll focus on Europe or even naval power rather than Americas.

Maybe the Haitian white planter population flee to Louisiana. Creole Draka anyone? JUST KIDDING

I think we would need to rethink the French Revolution, much less Napoleon's rule, in order to have France hold on to Louisiana, but I think the U.S. wouldn't be annexing it by force within the first fifty years of its existence or so. Even if an XYZ Affair sort of thing drives a wedge between the two nations, I don't think outright war is inevitable.
 
Top