US war against France between 1792 & 1807?

they could take Haiti & use it as a territory to send feed slaves

There always was the big question about what to do with freed slaves. I think that was one of the major stumbling blocks towards manumission/emancipation. Sure, Jefferson was against it in principle but he could never come up with an answer to that question. Same with other anti-slavery in principle people.
 
You're right, America won't fight Spain during its war with France. After the cessation of hostilities, America and Spain are on a collision course. Americans are breeding like rabbits and expanding into Spanish territory; the situation is only going to be exacerbated if Spain still controls Louisiana. In OTL, America almost went to war with Spain over New Orleans, something similar could happen ATL. Florida is going to remain a bone of contention as well.

Would Spain really want these territories? Unlike Spain's rich New World colonies elsewhere in the Americas, Louisiana and Florida aren't really known for being the source of great riches like say, Bolivia or what is now Mexico. And prior to large-scale settlement and development, neither of them are particularly rich territories with the exception of New Orleans (which even despite its strategic location is a hotbed of malaria and other tropical maladies common in the American South).

Andrew Jackson basically invaded Spanish Florida historically and rather than provoke a crisis, over time, Jackson's invasion along with a series of other issues with the territory basically made the Spanish realize that they couldn't control the place so rather than attempt that they simply sold off the territory.

Louisiana was basically a larger version of the same issue (couldn't really be settled by Spain, and was quickly starting to develop a firm American presence). Napoleon pawned off Louisiana to the Americans because he had other things to worry about, surely the King of Spain, while not plotting any massive European conquests, would have similar concerns to maintain the rest of Spain's colonial empire without having to worry about an expensive periphery.
 
Would Spain really want these territories? Unlike Spain's rich New World colonies elsewhere in the Americas, Louisiana and Florida aren't really known for being the source of great riches like say, Bolivia or what is now Mexico. And prior to large-scale settlement and development, neither of them are particularly rich territories with the exception of New Orleans (which even despite its strategic location is a hotbed of malaria and other tropical maladies common in the American South).

Andrew Jackson basically invaded Spanish Florida historically and rather than provoke a crisis, over time, Jackson's invasion along with a series of other issues with the territory basically made the Spanish realize that they couldn't control the place so rather than attempt that they simply sold off the territory.

Louisiana was basically a larger version of the same issue (couldn't really be settled by Spain, and was quickly starting to develop a firm American presence). Napoleon pawned off Louisiana to the Americans because he had other things to worry about, surely the King of Spain, while not plotting any massive European conquests, would have similar concerns to maintain the rest of Spain's colonial empire without having to worry about an expensive periphery.

Spain handed over Louisiana to France in large part to curry favor with them. They will have no impetus to sell to the Americans, other than simply to get cold hard cash. Spain's finances were in dire shape, but I still don't think such a sale would happen. Unlike France, Spain has valuable colonies bordering Louisiana territory.
 
Would Spain really want these territories? Unlike Spain's rich New World colonies elsewhere in the Americas, Louisiana and Florida aren't really known for being the source of great riches like say, Bolivia or what is now Mexico. And prior to large-scale settlement and development, neither of them are particularly rich territories with the exception of New Orleans (which even despite its strategic location is a hotbed of malaria and other tropical maladies common in the American South).

Andrew Jackson basically invaded Spanish Florida historically and rather than provoke a crisis, over time, Jackson's invasion along with a series of other issues with the territory basically made the Spanish realize that they couldn't control the place so rather than attempt that they simply sold off the territory.

Louisiana was basically a larger version of the same issue (couldn't really be settled by Spain, and was quickly starting to develop a firm American presence). Napoleon pawned off Louisiana to the Americans because he had other things to worry about, surely the King of Spain, while not plotting any massive European conquests, would have similar concerns to maintain the rest of Spain's colonial empire without having to worry about an expensive periphery.

OTL, Spain was extremely paranoid about American encroachment onto their New World colonies, even the less valuable ones. They viewed it as Spanish territory and thereby didn't want to give it up - kind of like China and the Tibetan Plateau region today. The Americans were only able to infiltrate the Spanish colonies OTL because Carlos IV sold off Louisiana, Joseph Bonaparte was a bit of a distraction, and Fernando VII was bad all round. Spain only gave up Florida after repeated American filibusters culminating in Jackson's invasion, with Onis beating his head against a wall in Washington - Spain desperately tried to cling to its colonies but couldn't in the end. America will eventually attempt a takeover of Spanish territory which Spain will be unable to resist without British aid - doubtful at best, though it does depend on the circumstances.

Spain handed over Louisiana to France in large part to curry favor with them. They will have no impetus to sell to the Americans, other than simply to get cold hard cash. Spain's finances were in dire shape, but I still don't think such a sale would happen. Unlike France, Spain has valuable colonies bordering Louisiana territory.

I maybe wrong about this, but I think one of Spain's conditions in giving Louisiana to France was that it was never to be sold to America (that turned out well :rolleyes:).
 
Spain handed over Louisiana to France in large part to curry favor with them. They will have no impetus to sell to the Americans, other than simply to get cold hard cash. Spain's finances were in dire shape, but I still don't think such a sale would happen. Unlike France, Spain has valuable colonies bordering Louisiana territory.

Aye, the buffer zone that Louisiana provides to Spanish Mexico would be no small strategic benefit.

That said, the problem with Louisiana is that it is even larger and less governable than Texas was for Mexico IOTL, and the right of deposit is an issue the United States will go to war over if push comes to shove. I do agree in that I don't think Spain would sell Louisiana quite as readily as France (which was dying to pawn the place off for money to finance war in Europe), but ultimately the growing shift of demographics in the American favor will likely force Spain to save face by selling the territory rather than risking war. Spain can't really control the vast territory, and America really needs New Orleans, which will make it an issue sooner rather than later. IMHO far more likely to be resolved violently compared to the fairly quiet affair of OTL.

Likely a diplomatic agreement selling the territory in exchange for a bevy of diplomatic promises about settling Mexico that the Americans will agree to but never actually enforce.

OTL, Spain was extremely paranoid about American encroachment onto their New World colonies, even the less valuable ones. They viewed it as Spanish territory and thereby didn't want to give it up - kind of like China and the Tibetan Plateau region today. The Americans were only able to infiltrate the Spanish colonies OTL because Carlos IV sold off Louisiana, Joseph Bonaparte was a bit of a distraction, and Fernando VII was bad all round. Spain only gave up Florida after repeated American filibusters culminating in Jackson's invasion, with Onis beating his head against a wall in Washington - Spain desperately tried to cling to its colonies but couldn't in the end. America will eventually attempt a takeover of Spanish territory which Spain will be unable to resist without British aid - doubtful at best, though it does depend on the circumstances.

A minor nitpick: the Tibetan Plateau actually controls the source of China's water (the Himalayas), in the same way Kashmir does for India and Pakistan, so it's a vital imperative for any Chinese state, communist or otherwise, to control the place.

I guess my big issue is settlers, the American government doesn't really control them (and a confrontation with the American government against American settlers would be an extremely awkward affair, which is likely why nobody would want to risk something like that), and the size of the Louisiana Territory prevents Spain from effectively controlling the influx of settlers. The advent of the steamboat will help farmers and traders along the Mississippi River just as readily as it will help people looking to illegally settle the region. These are probably going to be the hard, rough frontiersman types of OTL who come there and for the first few generations prior to the establishment of major settlements largely live off the land and eat whatever they can shoot.

Armed Americans who are fully capable of disappearing into the untamed wilds settling in a peripheral Spanish territory with only a minimal Spanish presence is unlikely to end well for Spain, to say the least.

Can Britain even really provide significant aid to Spain short of outright intervention? Britain's strategy of containing American expansion by funneling guns to the Iroquois and other British-allied Indian tribes was for all intents and purposes working fairly well in the early days of the American republic. I would think the long-term threat of American expansionism would be a hard thing to sell Parliament on when it came to providing anything in the realm of serious support to Spain.
 
Last edited:
If there is a US French war a couple of things,


First is the US navy contribution would quickly become one of trade PROTECTION from French cruisers as OTL. Most of the French navy was stuck in port getting somewhat mashed up by the RN when it ventured out. A large part of French commerce was making the RN rich, The USN would gets its share but a small one just on numbers of ships.

Second the US Army OTL was around 4,000 men. so to be a meaningful force beyond protecting the frontier requires a drastic change in US perception of the need for an army or a willingness to raise militia for overseas work.

Third Haiti is not easy. There are 400-500k slaves either in revolt or running the Island for most of this period with some competent leaders ( and you don't need bullets a sharp cane knife vs flintlocks is a good bet). Suppression of this proved impossible for both the French and British so you are probably looking at sending and maintaining an army of around 20,000 for some years. Given the attrition rate from fever that's probably a commitment of around 100k men with an 80% casualty rate. Not a good prospect for a population of 4 million.

Fourth unless the US raises significant forces it will very much be the junior partner and unlikely to get much in the way of spoils, Florida probably as the Islands are just too damn valuable.

And a small point 20% of US revenues were used to pay off the Barbary Corsairs up to 1800.
 
A minor nitpick: the Tibetan Plateau actually controls the source of China's water (the Himalayas), in the same way Kashmir does for India and Pakistan, so it's a vital imperative for any Chinese state, communist or otherwise, to control the place.

I guess my big issue is settlers, the American government doesn't really control them (and a confrontation with the American government against American settlers would be an extremely awkward affair, which is likely why nobody would want to risk something like that), and the size of the Louisiana Territory prevents Spain from effectively controlling the influx of settlers. The advent of the steamboat will help farmers and traders along the Mississippi River just as readily as it will help people looking to illegally settle the region. These are probably going to be the hard, rough frontiersman types of OTL who come there and for the first few generations prior to the establishment of major settlements largely live off the land and eat whatever they can shoot.

Armed Americans who are fully capable of disappearing into the untamed wilds settling in a peripheral Spanish territory with only a minimal Spanish presence is unlikely to end well for Spain, to say the least.

Can Britain even really provide significant aid to Spain short of outright intervention? Britain's strategy of containing American expansion by funneling guns to the Iroquois and other British-allied Indian tribes was for all intents and purposes working fairly well in the early days of the American republic. I would think the long-term threat of American expansionism would be a hard thing to sell Parliament on when it came to providing anything in the realm of serious support to Spain.

It does? I thought the Yellow and the Yangtze managed to flow out of the highlands without ever going into Tibet proper :eek:. I'll use a better analogy next time ;).

Settlers are the big issue. The typical pattern for illegal American expansion - Texas, California, Oregon, I'm sure there's more - was for settlers to, well, settle the area, and rely on either the threat or use of arms to seize it down the road. They tended to be bolstered by American demographics; when your population doubles in size every twenty years you can pretty much do what you want in an underpopulated area. The settlement trend will only be exacerbated by Spanish control of the Mississippi and New Orleans, as well as America having a smaller population to begin with. Eventually the country will intervene in the affairs of its unintended infiltrators.

You'd probably need a very specific set of circumstances for the British to aid the Spanish against America, but there's no one else who could realistically do it, so that's the hypothetical :D. OTL it almost happened when Polk tried to bite off Oregon and Mexico at the same time; if America gets overzealous, it could end up in a war against all of its neighbors at once. Still, even if it happened it wouldn't alter long term American Expansionism too much.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
Of that group, I think only Washington and Adams were fairly opposed. (Not sure about Jay). Jefferson didn't even free his slaves upon death, after all, and never spoke up for emanciption.

The US would have no clue how to suppress the Haitian uprising, and would lack the resources to do so.

Washington wasn't opposed to slavery. Words = shit, pro-slavery policies = revealing.
 
i wonder if anyones done a TL where the US enter the French Revolutionary Wars of the Coalition side?

YES!:D

How did a thread about a Franco-American War become so Haiti obsessed? I would have thought it would have been speculations about the US entering alliances against Napoleon, Anglo-American friendship, a British abolition of Impressment:), engulfing and devouring Louisiana (there has been some of that here), and a "Special Relationship" 140 ahead of schedule.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Top