What if Napoleon never declared compliance with American maritime demands in 1810?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
In OTL, by the terms of Macon's Bill Number 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macon's_Bill_Number_2,
the U.S. was open to trade with Britain and France despite their violations of American neutral rights from the American POV. However, as an incentive for good behavior, the bill had a proviso that if Britain or France agreed respect American neutral rights, the US would cut off trade with its enemy.

In OTL, the UK ignored the U.S. pressure (at least until too late to stop war) while France exploited the opportunity to get better press in the US and to sour US-British relations by at least saying France agreed to American demands.

What if Napoleon did not get around to responding to the act, either due to inattention or contempt?

If France had not pledged, then the provisions embargoing Britain would not have gone into effect a few months later. US public opinion would have been equally outraged at both France and Britain, weakening the argument to pick one to go to war with. And ongoing trade ties with Britain would have lessened tension compared to OTL's trajectory and left incentives to avoid war.

Could a declaration of war on Britain have passed in the period between 1812 and 1815 under these circumstances? Without Britain distinguished as *the* offender against US maritime rights (because France is gleefully privateering against American ships whenever convenient), is land lust by some for Canada and recriminations over policy towards Amerindians enough to lead to a US declaration of war on Britain?

Are any circumstances from this point forward likely to lead to a US declaration of war on France?

What are the long-term consequences if the US does not go to war at all with Britain in the 1812-1815 period or only does so later in that period compared with OTL?
 
France could hardly do anything else to agree publicly to respect neutral rights.

The relationship between France and Britain was asymmetrical. France could no longer challenge Britain on the seas after Trafalgar. So it would have been very stupid not trying to turn such a weakness into a diplomatic strength by declaring common views with the neutrals.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
But what if Napoleon neglected this opportunity? what do the British and Americans do? howe do they develop if they do not go to war at all in this period?
 
But what if Napoleon neglected this opportunity? what do the British and Americans do? howe do they develop if they do not go to war at all in this period?

I could rephrase your question : what if Napoleon was such an incompetent idiot that he would fail to make an absolutely obvious decision ?

My answer is that your question is unsolvably contradictory.

If Napoleon made such raw mistakes, he would never have reached the position of power he reached and then would not be in a position to make such a mistake as the one you mention.

Even if France and its allies had not suffered a crushing defeat at Trafalgar, Napoleon would just not make such a mistake.

All of Napoleon’s strategy was about isolating Britain and putting the neutrals on his side, in order to establish a diplomatic situation comparable to the one that brought Britain’s defeat in the conflict that is misnamed the American Revolution War.
 
But what if Napoleon neglected this opportunity? what do the British and Americans do? howe do they develop if they do not go to war at all in this period?

Probably not much new will happen. The very situation that made it the obvious decision (France's impotence at sea) also means that France is no longer really in a position to violate the US' maritime demands. May as well agree to terms that you're already following even if you're not doing it on purpose. But even if they don't agree tensions between the US and France will likely deescalate as French violations of US shipping decline.
 
Top